304:
would in public and they have the right to ask/force you to leave. The thing is, they have to temper that right with a bit of flexibility since almost 100,000 people work there, there are hundreds of cafes, restaurants and shops in which (according to the article) half a million people shop each week, there is a tube station, etc. Obviously these things are for the public consumption so it ends up being much like a shopping centre - unless you're up to mischief, they'd be shooting themselves in the foot if they're too heavy handed with you. Still, what sort of security risk is an SLR camera? A terrorist would use a camera phone or something that he could obscure. Or he'd simply act like all the other P&S tourists.
41:
694:
with a camera like that, they'd probably assume it was a bomb! And you would still have the problem of people intruding on the shot (unless of course you wanted them there) with the added problem of wasting film when that happens. And finally you wouldn't have the dynamic range ability since you couldn't exposure blend. All of this while the sun is rapidly setting. Sometimes environmental factors affect your ability to take the
527:
Fair call on the stitching error, I didn't even notice that one. Not sure how it even happened since it was shot on a tripod. Should actually be fairly trivial to mask in photoshop - I'll give it a go as it wouldn't fundimentally alter the image I don't think. I'm not sure that you're right about the
426:
Quite late actually. 9:45pm according to my EXIF. Remember though that we're practically right on the summer solstice here, and London is quite northern. It was early dusk. Exposure blending has lightened the foreground slightly though, without overexposing the sky. If you look at the sky you can see
277:
That really ****es me off - I got 'stopped' on the steps of
Waterloo station once for taking photos with my 350D, despite the fact that there were hundreds of people with their little point and shoot Sonys around me. I hate having to explain the law to policemen, especially the ones that think having
600:
stitching errors on the ground, but so small that it almost isn't even a pixel out of alignment, it is more the anti-aliasing is out of alignment! I could mask them too, but I don't think I'll bother. :-) I couldn't take this shot from a higher point unless I had a really big ladder that I could put
322:
Same thing happened to me in Paris. Since rise of terrorism, we are not allowed to take any picture on any train station anymore (but it's easy get an authorization). Silly thing, if I really wanted to spy, I would choose a P&S camera over a giant camera+lens+tripod combination. But on the other
303:
Yep, its absolutely ridiculous.. Thing thats different about Canary Wharf though... Its private property. I actually work in Canary Wharf at the moment and wasn't even aware of that. The entire development isn't actually public land. In this case, you don't have the same rights to take photos as you
693:
You're welcome to try. A medium format camera won't really change anything significantly though. You would still need to stitch multiple frames together to get the field of view (about 150-160 degrees in this case I think) and perspective. Also, you would be hassled by security guards even more so
619:
I understand you couldn't take it from higher, but point out that the low point of view doesn't suit perspective correction IMO. I give you coordinates of stitching errors, in case we are not talking about the same (because to me they are more than a pixel misaligned) : (1099, 1682), ..., (1070,
581:
Have you noticed the stitching errors on the foremost part of the ground too ? ;) I also agree with Daniel on the perspective correction. I believe we "naturally correct" perspective so we see two parallel lines as actually diverging. Had you taken the same pic from a higher point, it would have
620:
1567). alignement of these errors make me think it's from a separation between the two leftmost shots on the lower row. Same on the right side (but less visible). I also see (1493, 582) and around on the middle tower (I'll stop nitpicking for tonight ;) ).
416:
Excellent shot and congrats on getting it people free! Out of interest what time of day was this taken at? It kinda has the "feel" of early morning (particularly the sky) but with the lights in the windows etc I'm almost thinking late evening?
206:
I went to great lengths to avoid them, actually. It took about 45 minutes for me to take a sequence completely free of people! This is an exposure blend so any people in the frame would end up as ghosts as they moved between each exposure.
678:
It wouldn't bother me to see this image on the main page, but it's too crafted without the beauty of a large format camera. All I can think while looking at this image is taking out the 4X5 and getting it set up perfectly.
814:
I think it is multiple occupancy, lots of tenants on different floors. Its about 250 metres tall compared to 200 with than the other two, but closer to the camera so it looks a lot bigger, proportionally.
546:
Hang on, I can see an ever-so-slight lean on the far edge of the building, but even then its probably only 3 pixels lean from end to end. Given that any perspective-uncorrected photo is going to have '
568:
No, but given the upward angle of the camera I found your perspective correction a bit too much. It looks just irritating to me, as if the buildings were leaning outward. To find that they actually
730:
We always want more, but my point was sometimes it simply isn't realistic or possible, and that idea of reshooting with a medium format camera would only add to the complications, not solve them.
239:
Hahaha, you've obviously photographed Canary Wharf before... dozens. Even had the head of security come out of his office to have a word to me but was evidently satisfied I wasn't a terrorist.
762:
I think my point is, this image leaves me focused on the more I want, rather than what it gives. It's a nice image, but it is, imo, missing some oomph. It just doesn't do it for me. --
34:
638:
Maybe its more of an optical illusion caused by the
Mercator projection on these specific buildings? Do you see the same effect if you switch to another projection?
528:
overcorrection on the left building though. I see all the vertical lines as vertical (give or take a single pixel anyway). Can you show me where it is not straight?
866:
856:
842:
828:
809:
793:
771:
757:
743:
725:
711:
688:
670:
647:
629:
614:
591:
576:
563:
541:
522:
510:
493:
470:
449:
440:
421:
408:
385:
359:
332:
317:
298:
272:
252:
234:
220:
201:
184:
165:
148:
131:
108:
518:. There is a stitching error on the rightmost front facade and the perspective is overcorrected on the left side, making the building lean outwards. --
716:
And sometimes a photo is great enough that you want that little bit more. Sometimes it's okay without that little bit more, sometimes it's not. --
17:
861:
748:
Amen, I can't even envisage anyone attempting this shot with medium or large format film. The digital era pretty much made this shot possible
550:
more lean by definition, I don't see it as a serious problem. I didn't claim it was a mathematically and symmetrically perfect image. :-)
582:
looked good. Maybe it's worth a try not to stick to strict vertical lines and make them converge a little (it's almost free after all).
379:
427:
the grey wispy clouds common just after the sun has set and is no longer illuminating them, but is still keeping the sky quite bright.
294:
445:
Thanks for that - and I'm not doubting that it could/was taken at dusk, I was just genuinely unsure and interested to know! --
484:
466:
291:
263:
144:
824:
739:
707:
610:
559:
537:
436:
313:
248:
216:
104:
23:
479:
462:
258:
506:
140:
67:
It is a well exposed, aesthetic, high resolution panoramic view of an important location and skyline in London.
56:
801:- Very nice image. Out of interest, who owns that big building in the centre, between the HSBC and CitiGroup?
374:
40:
288:
401:
763:
717:
680:
625:
587:
502:
328:
802:
767:
721:
684:
370:
197:
666:
283:
180:
52:
821:
753:
736:
704:
643:
607:
556:
534:
433:
394:
355:
310:
278:
a more expensive, professional camera means you're more likely to blow yourself up. Oh, and
245:
230:
213:
161:
123:
101:
48:
621:
583:
324:
850:
193:
662:
573:
519:
446:
418:
174:
77:
73:
816:
788:
749:
731:
699:
639:
602:
551:
529:
428:
351:
305:
240:
226:
208:
157:
117:
96:
85:
839:
47:- The three tallest skyscrapers in Canary Wharf as viewed from Cabot Square:
225:
And how many jobsworth rentacops came and pestered you in that 45 mins?
257:
Your beard probably led them to suspect you in the first place. :-)
837:
Promoted Image:Cabot Square, Canary Wharf - June 2008.jpg
24:
Knowledge (XXG):Featured picture candidates/Canary Wharf
323:hand, policemens only do what they are told to....
8:
18:Knowledge (XXG):Featured picture candidates
501:. Great picture, high encyclopedic value.
39:
867:Featured picture nominations/June 2008
478:Good picture with encyclopedic value.
192:. Great one. Where are all people? -
7:
572:leaning outward tipped the scale. --
857:Ended featured picture nominations
367:. Great quality, and informative.
31:
70:Articles this image appears in
1:
862:Featured picture nominations
173:per nom. Terrific quality.
883:
494:16:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
471:06:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
450:00:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
441:22:47, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
422:22:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
409:21:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
386:21:12, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
360:20:41, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
350:per nom. Great Photo! --
273:16:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
253:06:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
235:06:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
221:22:06, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
202:19:45, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
185:19:05, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
166:18:12, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
149:15:38, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
132:12:37, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
109:11:58, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
843:05:20, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
829:14:46, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
810:12:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
794:01:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
772:03:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
758:02:42, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
744:22:53, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
726:16:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
712:07:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
689:06:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
671:05:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
648:18:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
630:18:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
615:18:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
592:17:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
577:15:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
564:13:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
542:13:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
523:12:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
511:07:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
333:17:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
318:17:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
299:16:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
60:
43:
463:Capital photographer
93:Support as nominator
35:Canary Wharf skyline
661:. Great picture! --
141:Massimo Catarinella
61:
827:
742:
710:
613:
562:
540:
491:
439:
316:
270:
251:
219:
107:
53:One Canada Square
22:(Redirected from
874:
819:
807:
791:
734:
702:
605:
596:Well, I can see
554:
532:
485:
431:
405:
398:
382:
377:
308:
264:
243:
211:
177:
99:
57:Citigroup Centre
27:
882:
881:
877:
876:
875:
873:
872:
871:
847:
846:
803:
789:
461:excellent shot
403:
396:
380:
375:
175:
51:(centre-left),
49:8 Canada Square
38:
29:
28:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
880:
878:
870:
869:
864:
859:
849:
848:
834:
833:
832:
831:
796:
782:
781:
780:
779:
778:
777:
776:
775:
774:
728:
673:
656:
655:
654:
653:
652:
651:
650:
636:
635:
634:
633:
632:
579:
513:
503:Mostlyharmless
496:
473:
456:
455:
454:
453:
452:
411:
388:
362:
345:
344:
343:
342:
341:
340:
339:
338:
337:
336:
335:
320:
275:
187:
168:
151:
134:
111:
89:
88:
83:
80:
71:
68:
65:
59:(centre-right)
37:
32:
30:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
879:
868:
865:
863:
860:
858:
855:
854:
852:
845:
844:
841:
838:
830:
826:
823:
818:
813:
812:
811:
808:
806:
800:
797:
795:
792:
786:
783:
773:
769:
765:
761:
760:
759:
755:
751:
747:
746:
745:
741:
738:
733:
729:
727:
723:
719:
715:
714:
713:
709:
706:
701:
697:
692:
691:
690:
686:
682:
677:
674:
672:
668:
664:
660:
657:
649:
645:
641:
637:
631:
627:
623:
618:
617:
616:
612:
609:
604:
601:a tripod on!
599:
595:
594:
593:
589:
585:
580:
578:
575:
571:
567:
566:
565:
561:
558:
553:
549:
548:significantly
545:
544:
543:
539:
536:
531:
526:
525:
524:
521:
517:
514:
512:
508:
504:
500:
497:
495:
492:
489:
483:
482:
477:
474:
472:
468:
464:
460:
457:
451:
448:
444:
443:
442:
438:
435:
430:
425:
424:
423:
420:
415:
412:
410:
407:
406:
400:
399:
392:
389:
387:
384:
383:
378:
373:
372:
366:
363:
361:
357:
353:
349:
346:
334:
330:
326:
321:
319:
315:
312:
307:
302:
301:
300:
297:
296:
293:
290:
285:
281:
276:
274:
271:
268:
262:
261:
256:
255:
254:
250:
247:
242:
238:
237:
236:
232:
228:
224:
223:
222:
218:
215:
210:
205:
204:
203:
199:
195:
191:
188:
186:
182:
178:
172:
169:
167:
163:
159:
155:
152:
150:
146:
142:
138:
135:
133:
130:
127:
126:
122:
119:
115:
112:
110:
106:
103:
98:
94:
91:
90:
87:
84:
81:
79:
75:
72:
69:
66:
63:
62:
58:
54:
50:
46:
42:
36:
33:
25:
19:
836:
835:
804:
798:
784:
695:
675:
658:
597:
569:
547:
515:
498:
487:
480:
475:
458:
413:
402:
395:
390:
369:
368:
364:
347:
287:
284:Vanderdecken
279:
266:
259:
189:
170:
153:
136:
128:
124:
120:
116:well done. —
113:
92:
78:Cabot Square
74:Canary Wharf
44:
787:Beautiful.
676:Weak oppose
851:Categories
825:(Contribs)
740:(Contribs)
708:(Contribs)
611:(Contribs)
560:(Contribs)
538:(Contribs)
437:(Contribs)
314:(Contribs)
249:(Contribs)
217:(Contribs)
125:discussion
105:(Contribs)
55:(centre),
805:← κεηηε∂γ
622:Blieusong
584:Blieusong
393:per nom.
325:Blieusong
139:per nom.
764:Blechnic
718:Blechnic
681:Blechnic
481:Muhammad
260:Muhammad
194:Darwinek
45:Original
799:Support
785:Support
698:photo.
696:perfect
663:Amckern
659:Support
574:Dschwen
520:Dschwen
499:Support
476:Support
459:Support
447:Fir0002
419:Fir0002
414:Support
391:Support
371:Nautica
365:Support
348:Support
280:Support
190:Support
176:¢rassic
171:Support
154:Support
137:Support
114:Support
82:Creator
822:(Talk)
817:Diliff
790:Durova
750:Mfield
737:(Talk)
732:Diliff
705:(Talk)
700:Diliff
640:Mfield
608:(Talk)
603:Diliff
557:(Talk)
552:Diliff
535:(Talk)
530:Diliff
516:Oppose
434:(Talk)
429:Diliff
397:Beware
352:Mifter
311:(Talk)
306:Diliff
246:(Talk)
241:Diliff
227:Mfield
214:(Talk)
209:Diliff
158:Mfield
118:αἰτίας
102:(Talk)
97:Diliff
86:Diliff
64:Reason
840:MER-C
404:ofdog
156:nice
16:<
768:talk
754:talk
722:talk
685:talk
667:talk
644:talk
626:talk
598:tiny
588:talk
507:talk
488:talk
467:talk
376:Shad
356:talk
329:talk
267:talk
231:talk
198:talk
181:talk
162:talk
145:talk
76:and
570:are
282:. —
179:! (
853::
820:|
770:)
756:)
735:|
724:)
703:|
687:)
679:--
669:)
646:)
628:)
606:|
590:)
555:|
533:|
509:)
469:)
432:|
417:--
381:es
358:)
331:)
309:|
286:∴
244:|
233:)
212:|
200:)
183:)
164:)
147:)
100:|
95:--
766:(
752:(
720:(
683:(
665:(
642:(
624:(
586:(
505:(
490:)
486:(
465:(
354:(
327:(
295:φ
292:ξ
289:∫
269:)
265:(
229:(
196:(
160:(
143:(
129:•
121:•
26:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
