Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/The Gherkin

The Gherkin[edit]

I took this photo last weekend of the Swiss Re Tower in the City of London. It is a high quality panoramic (four segment vertical) image illustrating both the tower and the contrast of the the very modern architecture of the tower to the more traditional buildings in London. I don't think it has any significant distortion or tilt but the trouble with the building itself is that the shape and details make it difficult to 'measure'. :-)

Nominate and support. - Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 01:08, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Nice work, again! Iorek85 01:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I love this picture! It is so crisp and clear, and is beautiful! Good work, Gphoto^talk 01:24, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This may just be my computer, but I can barely distinguish the top of the building from the sky. Regards, Gphoto^talk 01:34, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - It must be your monitor, as I can distinguish the line (though it does fade significantly, as I stated in my vote). --Tewy 02:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. A very nice image. The only thing I don't like is that the tower isn't very well lit. The top of it almost fades into the sky (as Gphoto mentioned). I do like the contrast between modern and traditional, but that prevents the tower from standing out on its own. Is there a location from which a picture of the tower can be seen top to bottom (and with minimal distortion)? --Tewy 02:04, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Short answer, no there is no location anywhere in London where it can be seen from top to bottom. Have a look at the article to see what sort of views you can get of the tower. I work nearby and I have tried to find the ideal viewpoint for taking a photo of this unusual building, but it is really not possible to find a better location. The lead image is also quite good with less distortion, but with a lot more distractions in the foreground. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:55, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Just to illustrate my point about the location, here is a hybrid google map showing the tower in relation to central London. It is one of the more built up cities in the world so unless you find an open space, buildings will block the view of the tower completely, or you might just see the tip of the tower. I took the photo from the south-west looking across the courtyard. There are no other nearby viewpoints as the building is obscured in all other directions. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:08, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
oppose, poor contrast at the top due to its lack of light makes it blend into the night and the division between building and sky hard to see, which is detractive when we're trying to show the building. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 06:40, 11 November 2006 (UTC)\[reply]
Oppose, blown out highlights, if the subject is the Gherkin then it should be centered, speckles that were apparently on the lens, this image has problems... gren グレン 09:26, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but I don't think any of those are really legitimate problems. Yes, there are blown highlights on the interior of the building but this is going to be the case in ANY night time cityscape. We've featured plenty of images with this 'problem' before. Not all subjects have to be centered for aesthetic reasons and there are no 'speckles' on the lens. They're called stars. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:55, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ah, they do seem to be stars. If you take this again you will need to steady the camera better since they all appear to be lines sloping upwards to the right, which is not natural. I disagree with you on the centering issue in this case. I understand that there will always be blown out highlights, but I think they make this picture look bad--unlike on Image:Melbourne Docklands - Yarras Edge - marina panorama.jpg. Maybe it's not a technical problem (I think the stars are, though) but just a problem with how the building is lit. In that case I would argue that the best way to deal with this building is not a night shot. Part of it is likely that most shots of single buildings at night are not that good. I look forward to seeing more of your pictures--your other featured ones are great. gren グレン 13:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, the stars are sloping because the world is turning. ;-) Each exposure was about 15 seconds, enough for the world to turn just enough to blur the stars slightly. Technical fault? Perhaps you could consider it that, but aesthetically it is so minor that I'm surprised you even mentioned it. It seems that people tend to be far more critical of images than is necessary. More resolution is almost always better, I agree, but is it necessary to critique the image at full sized view for an image of this size? If I downsampled it to the minimum resolution requirements for FP, you'd barely even see the stars, let alone their slight movement. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 13:43, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - True, but at a lower res they wouldn't be as likely to impress and gain support. --Fir0002 06:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I like the composition and the quality is great. But is it only me who noticed a quality decreas in voting comments? What ever happened to In my opinion..., I'd prefer... etc., it still is just a minority, but some comments are pretty bold... ...and equally clueless. --Dschwen 13:08, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. A bit grainy at the top, but this doesn't detract to much from an otherwise great image. NauticaShad e s 17:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Minute oppose - glorious, but for the lack of contrast twixt the top of the gherkin and the sky. Sort that out somehow and I'll happily support. -- CountdownCrispy ^{( ?} 20:24, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support A good night shot of a very unusual building! But agree with above, the top of the building really mars the otherwise excellent sharpness of the image. --Fir0002 22:16, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's a great photo, and it's crazy to expect no blown highlights AND perfect contrast in an area with lights off. • Le on 04:22, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MichaelMaggs 09:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Most excellent image. I am puzzled by the comments on the lack of contrast against the sky on the uppermost part of the building. On my CRT monitor (19 inch Viewsonic) the transition from building to sky is perfectly clear. Secondly, the uppermost storeys have no lights so why should the transition be any clearer? This is a night picture! - Adrian Pingstone 10:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support I can't see how a better photo could be taken with these conditions. How did you manage to get almost all lights on in the white building?... What I don't like (and this justifies the "weak") is the angle, pity it is not possible to take the shot from a higher position. Of course, the sky doesn't stop moving during the exposure. Alvesgaspar 18:52, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support While I don´t like the fact that the building in the foreground looks more like the subject than the actualy tower (I thought the Gherkin is the church or whatever building in the foreground when I first saw this) other aspects of the photo is great. --antilived ^{T | C} 09:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - pity the thumbnail size looks blurry, but the full size photo is stunning, very sharp, which is tricky for a long exposure. Nice job! Stevage 13:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support The faults are minimal, and only the blown highlights are noticable. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 21:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support STRONGLY support, this is a brilliant photo, hearty congratulations to the photographer. This is almost enough to make me want to purchase a DSLR and get down to London as soon as I can to see if I can take one anywhere near as good. Mikeserieys 20:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Week Oppose I wish the building in front didn't focus your attention the way it does. Also it would be better if the background sky was more black. Right now it almost blends with the building's lighting. Buphoff 20:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with those who say that at full resolution the image looks great, however, at thumbnail size it looks kind of fuzzy. The encyclopedia uses the thumbnail version, and so I don't know if it adds enough to the encyclopedia to be FP. As for the composition, including the contrast with 'traditional London buildings', I prefer the first image in the article (which is probably not clear enough to be FP). Spebudmak 03:54, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Great resolution and good contrast between old and new architecture. User:Sd31415/Sig 03:21, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Support Very nice night shot. I love the contrast between New Age and Old Age! Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 10:52, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:30 St Mary Axe - The Gherkin from Leadenhall St - Nov 2006.jpg NauticaShad e s 10:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]