Oppose. Great subject and composition, but the technical quality is quite lacking. Lots of oversharpening haloes, not much detail in the texture of the building. Sorry to say, but I don't think the camera used is quite up to scratch (not sure what was used, but doesn't seem to be a DSLR, as the per-pixel sharpness/detail is usually much better than this one), as the bar is set fairly high for architectural shots like this. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 10:29, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rethinking, and maybe I've been too hasty. It still has visible haloes and seems a bit too contrasty (shadows very dark) even when downsampling it to 50% original res. The image does look much better downsampled, but there will be those who see it as unjustifiable... I guess I shouldn't be too elitist though. :-) I just happen to appreciate good detail at 100%, and this image just doesn't have that. I'll stay Neutral for now instead. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 10:37, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support per Diliff, though I don't see that contrast is a big issue. ZooFari 16:54, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support edit 1. I probably shouldn't support my own edit but I will anyway ; ). All I've done is undo some of the oversharpening and then sharpen it a bit more. Time3000 (talk) 16:59, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is it just me or is there a slight tilt to the right? Noodle snacks (talk) 23:08, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
According to the axis in Word, it is barely tilted. Not saying it isn't, but the amount isn't a big deal. ZooFari 00:14, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it looked tilted too. --jjron (talk) 13:22, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Original I think the original looks great nice and bright and detailed -- edit #1 looks kind of, um, washed out. Just my opinion. Banaticus (talk) 04:56, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose suffering from barrel distortion that is visible even in the thumbnail. Mfield (Oi!) 21:34, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This makes me wish for the days when we promoted images because they were great photographs, not because their resolution was an integer of considerable magnitude. We've got harsh shadows, oversaturated colors (my guess is as good as yours, right?), and a small blue cast. The photographer positioned himself so as to avoid the harsh shadows as much as possible, and in the process, garnered a significant amount of reflection off the picture center panel of the roof. The central problem here though is that it doesn't draw me in at all, and I don't expect it to do much more for others. (edit conflicted with Mfield earlier, so have not looked into distortion much) Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 22:39, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not able to give a coherent view on the aspects brought up above, but I think we can agree that, whatever the problems that keep this from FP quality, having this image is still highly valuable until we can get even better. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will when it's been there a month. wadester16 | Talk→ 04:58, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support - Not particulary excellent, but a very good, illustrative and beautifying image. - Damërung...ÏìíÏ..._ΞΞΞ_. -- 19:49, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Mfield. Avoidable distortion is not tolerable in architectural photos. P.S. who's going to close this? MER-C 13:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
