Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Schreierstoren

Schreierstoren, Amsterdam, Netherlands edit

Original - The Schreierstoren, originally part of the medieval city wall of Amsterdam, Netherlands, was built in the 15th century. It was the location from which Henry Hudson set sail on his journey to Northern America. This expedition would lead to the discovery of the island of Manhattan among others.

Alt. 1

Reason: EV+Quality
Articles this image appears in: Schreierstoren
Creator: Massimo Catarinella

Support as nominator --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 13:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good job separating the important building from the others. Why is it that you need the big chunk of black area in the bottom of the image? franklin 13:32, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That dark area is a brick wall which is a part of the canal adjacent to the road on to which the tower is located. I could remove a part of it if you like me to. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 17:38, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably needed it doesn't look well that black part. You also need to leave some of it since part of the importance of the image comes from the claim about Hudson (which I am guessing means that he parted from that canal). If this is the case then that canal should be better lighted too. I was looking at the article. It is a very little stub (probably a redundancy to say that) without citations. Even the info you provided in the caption was not there. I think some work on the article is necessary in order to claim EV. franklin 21:11, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The situation has changed since Hudson sailed out. The tower used to stand adjacent to the water and it was part of the harbor front of Amsterdam. In the last century the harbor moved westwards out of the city center and the front was widened greatly and a major thoroughfare (Prins Hendrikkade) was constructed on the newly claimed land (one of the busiest roads in the city). The body of water we're talking about is also closed of from the Ij due to the rail tracks running eastwards from the Central Railway Station, which also wasn't built in Hudson' time. It is true that the information isn't present in the article but some minor research on Google shall tell you the same as I do ;). The tower is also a landmark structure in Amsterdam and in that respect it has enough EV to justify FP status imo. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 21:35, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support but recommend cropping some of the black out. Xavexgoem (talk) 21:05, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey How did that happen? I was editing and your vote was not there. I saved and there was no edit conflict. Is it because you placed your vote below the line? Can someone explain? franklin 21:14, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Most likely he saved just before you hit edit and you didn't notice his vote there as it was below the line and out of view...? --jjron (talk) 06:03, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support but would prefer a crop around the building. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 08:12, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment the crop in alt1 begs for a tiny little crop from above and maybe (judge after cropping from above) a crop from the left. franklin 12:08, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A crop on the left would cut off part of the building (look at the white terrace).... --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 12:21, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question Why is it that the thumbnail of the crop is different from the actual crop? --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 13:21, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak oppose~~ although I like the isolation of the subject the black band in the bottom brings something odd to the image that doesn't seem to be solved by cropping. A new approach should be made. franklin 02:22, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, then tell me how this new approach should be made. Amsterdam can be viewed in 3D with Google Street View, so I would suggest you take a look at the site. Keep in mind that 8-10 busses drive past the tower a minute ;). --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 13:08, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

don't take my word as a recipe that is going to solve it because, as a photographer, I am either bad or rather mediocre. If I looked at the right place in google maps, there is a street in front of it then water and then another street from where the picture was taken (you can tell us). The picture can be taken from the street passing right in front of the building and there will be no black wall, no bicycles... If the wall with the bicycles is wanted then maybe taking the picture earlier or changing the exposure parameters can give more detail in the black wall. (I read somewhere that the best time for night photography is actually before sunset or right after but before it gets dark. No idea if this one was taken at that time.) franklin 21:47, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The picture was taken from an abandoned bus station across from the tower on the other side of the water. If you were to take the picture from the street right in front of the tower, you would get vertical perspective distortion, which would be quite significant. Also, the busses passing by would leave 'stripes of light' in the photograph covering its entire surface. Changing the exposure would create an overexposed sky. This picture was taken during the blue hour, but in stead of being blue the sky was purple on this day ;). --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 01:51, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to neutral to not affect the outcome of the nomination. I think the black thing doesn't look good. About overexposing the sky: I wouldn't dare to strongly contradict that since with high probability you know better than me about that but are you sure an overcast sky would overexpose with a tinny change allowing more detail in the black band in the bottom? franklin 11:08, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The histogram is already creeping up against the overexposed. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 12:40, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think the harsh light on the right could be cropped out, the adjacent background building does not look historical. Brand[t] 13:39, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What harsh light are you referring to? Every building in this image was built before the year 1900, so they are all historical. Even if there was a modern building in the background... this is Wikipedia, so the photograph should be a depiction of what this part of Amsterdam is really like. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 14:05, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then support alt 1. I'm referring to high street lamp, maybe it is fixable. Brand[t] 19:23, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, it isn't fixable. You will get at least one of those in your picture, no matter from which angle you take it. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 13:08, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A daytime shot would have greater EV (though perhaps be less pretty).Noodle snacks (talk) 10:53, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How would a daytime shot increase the EV? --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 12:40, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 04:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]