187:. ;-) I would argue that it isn't a better image than the existing FP that you've just removed from the Hong Kong article to replace with this one. I'd revert your change but I don't want to be seen to be taking it personally so I'll see what others think. I'll admit it is a less foggy/smoggy scene, but the view, while almost identical in terms of location, is a bit skewed, with the mountain side on the bottom-right corner which upsets the composition significantly. Also, I think it looks ever-so-slightly overexposed/flat - this is more just a matter of preference than technical fault, but when the existing FP was nominated, quite a few people complained that it had too much HDR processing and was too bright as a result. If that is the case, then this one is worse. Also ironic is that in the original FP nomination, Base64 (author of this image) thought that the dull, dark, unprocessed version was the most realistic one, and yet his image is far more HDR processed. Anyway, it isn't that I don't like the image. I just think the existing one is slightly better compositionally.
381:. While yes, the new one has a large portion obscured by the mountain, that is vastly made up by the fact that we can actually see across the strait, with a clearer sky and more vivid colors. No fault of course to the current FP, as it has been said, smog is tough to work with in Hong Kong, but it's been dealt with quite well here I think. Shame about the mountain, but I think the gains outweigh the losses. I do want to ask about the squiggly neon lines moving up and left from the "Wing On" building though. What caused that? --
54:
954:). One of the main features of this picture (and of the Hong Kong skyline) is the skyscrapers and their lighting. The Bank of China Tower (arguably the most famous Hong Kong skyscraper) not being fully lit up is what changed my mind. If I didn't believe the newer picture was of better quality, this would be a strong support. I don't know whether Knowledge (XXG) places more relevance on photograph content or quality, so someone who knows all the rules can make up my mind for me.
44:
209:(ec)@Diliff: I think that your picture is quite good as well, and it's clearly justified that it's featured. But I still think that this one has a better perspective and a better composition: In my opinion it looks more naturally. And exactly that is the point: It's rather subjective which one has a better perspective or a better composition. However it seems to be more obvious which one is better for an encyclopedic article: It's
34:
787:
the RHS) was superior, looking at it a full res I've changed my mind. I'm glad that the hillside is included as it gives an important perspective of the relatively abrupt finish of the "sky scraper zone" which is somewhat lacking in Diliff's shot. I particularly like the inclusion of the scene on the very top right corner (looking at 100%) - it finishes the scene better than Diliff's IMO. --
612:'s friend said about the current FP's fog is closest to reality. As I do not "Digitally Remove" the fog in this new image. I really monitored the weather and planned before taking the image. So, we shouldn't judge whether the fogs are "common or uncommon", and focus on the image's enc value and detail. Moreover, I have a proof on the "reason" of low visibility in hong kong
938:. I know it's not up for voting, but I'd like to support the original anyway. It has good lighting when in a thumbnail, but when viewed at full resolution, the lighting is perfect. There is much more content than the current FL (what's on the other side of the river makes up for what's behind the hill), and the fog/smog takes a lot away from the current picture as well.
638:
completely dark, producing a brilliant blue sky (though different to the "normal" blue sky, something you rarely see in the delta). I trust Dliff's judgment in deciding the correct exposure, and therefore I believe it's a photo of the latter scenario (unless Dliff adds the EXIF information back to prove me wrong :p). --
786:
Provided it has a good home (I'll leave "good home" up to MER-C's discretion). Both shots are impressive photographic achievements in terms of detail, sharpness, HDR and lack of noise and both deserve the FP badge. And while initially I agreed that the composition of Diliff's (without the hillside on
233:
As Brian0918 pointed out, the fog/smog isn't necessarily a bad thing as it is quite common in Hong Kong. Also, I'm not sure how you can say that this image is superior in terms of composition. Probably one fifth of the image is obscured by an almost completely blank mountain side! It just looks a bit
977:
article. And I thought this wasn't a delist and replace nom. The scope of the new image is wider, can you rethink your vote? If your reason for weak opposing is the not fully lit BoC building, I can tell you that the existing FP's BoC bldg is not full lit too! There is two "X" in the bottom missing
288:
That is why an edit would be better. This image is an unprocessed HDR(don't know how and what to process). The reason I said the "dull, unprocessed" FP is the best is because you have too much "yelllow" lights the the bottom(from the residential buildings in the bottom). ONE MORE THING, I believe I
972:
Skyline instead of Hong Kong
Skyline". There is a reason for the Bank of China's partial unlit light. The fact is, after 8PM, the BoC building's light cycles from bottom to top for more than 1 hour, a neutral density filter and long exposure is required to capture it without changing the aperture
647:
I honestly can't remember exactly what time it was taken. It was probably around half an hour after sunset, so yes, it was dusk, and there was still a glow in the sky (although in the fog, there is a point where it is hard to tell whether the glow is from the sun or the city lights - probably an
637:
Hmm why am I pulled into here... :) I think the different versions of the same photo can distort the perception of the time it's taken. The non-HDR version looks like a normal pano at night, whereas Dliff's HDR version looks like it's taken at dusk just after the sun's gone down and yet it's not
543:
I don't think there is any one single 'view'. Some days are foggy (clearly many, but from Base64's link it seems I was unlucky to visit when it was significantly foggy for the entire month!), some days are not. I don't think either is any more correct than the other. It really just comes down to
252:
May I ask, What do the current FP have in the 1/5 area. I see unidentifiable residential building. The composition is subjective. The current FP has a feel of "Looking from high spots. The one I look has a feel of "Looking from a mountain). Also, the current FP appears in
871:
Both are great images but the current FP has more detail that is blocked by the hill on the current candidate. The brightness of the city lights to the center of the image is quite confusing in comparison to the current FP's subtle lighting.
544:
personal preference. I'm biased, but I prefer the exposure and composition of mine, although I acknowledge that in terms of visibility, his is superior. They're both good images with different strengths and weaknesses.
973:
which affects the quality. Moreover, as you said the major strength of this image is "able to see across the harbour". I believe "Able to see full lighting of BoC bldg" is more important when the image is used in
395:
The squiggly lines are just the result of a long exposure. There are boats moving all over the harbour and any bright lights will show up as a trail as they move. Thanks for your opinion on the images.
968:
FYI about the lighting of some buildings. The existing FP's shooting time is "just after sunset, the new one's shooting time is "around 8PM night", that is why the image's name is Hong Kong
513:
184:
61:
323:- keep the current FP in the article. Current FP has more content, and based on the discussion from the first FPC, the fog/lighting of the current FP is probably closer to reality. —
213:, as there is a lot less fog. From my point of view that's an important point. Overall: Both are clearly great pictures, the rest seems to be a matter of taste. Best wishes, —
1056:
616:. It says it is caused by "suspended particulates(pollution)" from north-west. Which means the visibility is high when a thunderstorm has "washed" them away.
1046:
752:
article, it would be too unrealistic, as it is an HDR. Though it could show almost all details in both side of the harbour. Putting this image in article
475:
I realize that, but I do not think this is what one would see if they looked at the skyline with their naked eyes. Therefore, it is unencyclopedic.
17:
512:
This is all quite puzzling. I've never been to Hong Kong and so I must trust the opinion of others in terms of the realism of the image. In the
257:.And you said it was almost exactly the same location, why would a large mountain show up? The fact is, both images have different location. --
1051:
1032:
1003:
963:
927:
910:
898:
881:
863:
846:
829:
791:
778:
736:
700:
661:
642:
632:
557:
538:
507:
493:
470:
439:
409:
390:
369:
311:
279:
247:
228:
200:
173:
152:
134:
107:
1026:
694:
532:
487:
433:
210:
943:
Changed my mind; the current FL, while looking dirty (smoggy) and having less content, shows the buildings more lit up (notably
448:
Those HDR effect may make more things visible. See the mountain ACROSS the harbour in the back. That is to show the terrain. --
951:
710:
Sorry, I made an mistake. I haven't done any adjustment on contrast of the original, it is unaltered from RAW to Final Jpeg.
648:
equal amount of both). I could check the EXIF data but I can't recall whether I changed the camera time to HK local anyway.
164:
as, though there is the mountain offsetting the composition, I like the fact that this is less hazy than the current one.
822:
771:
729:
657:
581:
553:
463:
405:
362:
304:
272:
243:
196:
602:
By the way, am I allowed to nominate the non-HDR as alternative? or only the original nonimator(aitias) has the right?
859:
807:
I really hope that uploading the non-HDR image may solve the "overproccessed" issue as said by others. Thanks--
1021:
689:
527:
482:
428:
169:
148:
620:
53:
585:
520:'s friend seems to think that the current FP is closest. Can someone clarify this before I alter my vote?
877:
855:
165:
144:
289:
took this image around/after 8:00PM, which means most of the Street lights/other lights were lit. --
894:
330:
43:
1017:
959:
685:
523:
478:
424:
344:
842:
623:, there are thousands of them with different time and exposure, and weather of course. :-) --
999:
923:
873:
815:
764:
722:
654:
628:
589:
577:
550:
503:
456:
402:
386:
355:
297:
265:
240:
220:
193:
126:
99:
498:
I kind of agree with you. Therefore, would it be better for the
Neutral non-HDR version? --
613:
991:
33:
907:
890:
639:
609:
517:
325:
1040:
979:
955:
944:
805:
if anyone think the neutral non-HDR is better, let me know, I'll try to produce one.
597:
569:
254:
838:
788:
421:. The angle is less encyclopedic, and it definitely has more of that "HDR" effect.
995:
919:
810:
759:
753:
717:
649:
624:
564:
That's right! Both images have different enc value. The existing can illustrate
545:
499:
451:
397:
382:
350:
292:
260:
235:
214:
188:
120:
93:
72:
Stunning picture, technically perfect, high encyclopedic value. Very well done.
987:
983:
974:
749:
593:
80:
600:. And I thought this is a new nomination, not Delist and Replace right? .
682:
I struck my oppose, because, after all, why can't both be featured?
573:
565:
516:
you say that the neutral version is the closest to reality, but
803:
version for reference. I couldn't improve the composition, but
837:. Too bright, looks too HDR, even more so than existing FP.
160:
I am now changing my vote, after seeing the current FP, to
712:
I've added the example to show when curves are altered.
748:
Am I allowed to? If this image nominated for being in
978:from the existing FP. Lastly, are you refering to
619:If find no one to trust, you can take a look at
8:
18:Knowledge (XXG):Featured picture candidates
1012:Promoted Image:Hong Kong Night Skyline.jpg
52:
42:
32:
1057:Featured picture nominations/June 2008
7:
347:. Look at Dec 2007 and June 2008. --
1047:Ended featured picture nominations
24:
211:Image:Hong Kong Night Skyline.jpg
143:My god, it's so sharp, it burns!
799:I've added the thumbnail of the
906:looks great to me. Fine image.
952:Bank of China Tower, Hong Kong
343:About the fog, take a look at
77:Articles this image appears in
38:Original (Linear Contrast HDR)
1:
714:(It's unnecessary for now) --
584:. The new one can illustrate
1052:Featured picture nominations
582:Central and Western District
28:Hong Kong Night Skyline.jpg
1073:
1033:22:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
1004:09:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
990:, tell me the difference
964:03:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
928:22:58, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
911:21:16, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
899:07:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
882:19:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
864:02:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
847:17:49, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
830:13:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
792:11:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
779:11:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
737:08:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
701:02:38, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
662:13:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
643:08:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
633:01:08, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
608:Also, I don't agree what
558:17:48, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
539:16:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
508:00:40, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
494:00:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
471:02:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
440:01:35, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
410:22:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
391:21:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
370:02:02, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
312:02:02, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
280:02:02, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
248:21:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
229:20:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
201:19:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
174:23:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
153:19:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
135:19:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
108:19:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
62:Original nomination here
586:Geography of Hong Kong
65:
50:
40:
56:
46:
36:
185:looks quite familiar
119:reasons see above. —
756:would be better. --
335:• 2008-06-16 20:11Z
48:Alternative Non-HDR
828:
777:
735:
469:
368:
310:
278:
66:
51:
41:
808:
757:
715:
660:
556:
449:
408:
348:
336:
290:
258:
246:
199:
1064:
1029:
1024:
934:Support original
856:Jamesflomonosoff
827:
825:
819:
813:
776:
774:
768:
762:
734:
732:
726:
720:
697:
692:
652:
621:images at flickr
590:Victoria Harbour
578:Hong Kong Island
548:
535:
530:
490:
485:
468:
466:
460:
454:
436:
431:
400:
367:
365:
359:
353:
333:
324:
309:
307:
301:
295:
277:
275:
269:
263:
238:
191:
1072:
1071:
1067:
1066:
1065:
1063:
1062:
1061:
1037:
1036:
1027:
1022:
918:great image. --
823:
820:
817:
811:
809:
772:
769:
766:
760:
758:
730:
727:
724:
718:
716:
695:
690:
533:
528:
488:
483:
464:
461:
458:
452:
450:
434:
429:
363:
360:
357:
351:
349:
331:
305:
302:
299:
293:
291:
273:
270:
267:
261:
259:
31:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1070:
1068:
1060:
1059:
1054:
1049:
1039:
1038:
1009:
1008:
1007:
1006:
940:
939:
930:
913:
901:
884:
866:
849:
832:
816:
794:
781:
765:
739:
723:
704:
703:
680:
679:
678:
677:
676:
675:
674:
673:
672:
671:
670:
669:
668:
667:
666:
665:
664:
617:
606:
605:
604:
457:
443:
442:
414:
413:
412:
375:
374:
373:
372:
356:
338:
337:
317:
316:
315:
314:
298:
286:
285:
284:
283:
282:
266:
204:
203:
177:
176:
157:
156:
141:Strong support
137:
112:
90:
89:
86:
83:
78:
74:
73:
70:
30:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1069:
1058:
1055:
1053:
1050:
1048:
1045:
1044:
1042:
1035:
1034:
1031:
1030:
1025:
1020:
1019:
1013:
1005:
1001:
997:
993:
989:
985:
981:
980:Central Plaza
976:
971:
967:
966:
965:
961:
957:
953:
950:
946:
945:Central Plaza
942:
941:
937:
935:
931:
929:
925:
921:
917:
914:
912:
909:
905:
902:
900:
896:
892:
888:
885:
883:
879:
875:
870:
867:
865:
861:
857:
853:
850:
848:
844:
840:
836:
833:
831:
826:
821:
814:
806:
802:
798:
795:
793:
790:
785:
782:
780:
775:
770:
763:
755:
751:
747:
745:
740:
738:
733:
728:
721:
713:
709:
706:
705:
702:
699:
698:
693:
688:
687:
681:
663:
659:
656:
651:
646:
645:
644:
641:
636:
635:
634:
630:
626:
622:
618:
615:
611:
607:
603:
599:
598:Victoria Peak
595:
591:
587:
583:
579:
575:
571:
570:air pollution
567:
563:
562:
561:
560:
559:
555:
552:
547:
542:
541:
540:
537:
536:
531:
526:
525:
519:
515:
511:
510:
509:
505:
501:
497:
496:
495:
492:
491:
486:
481:
480:
474:
473:
472:
467:
462:
455:
447:
446:
445:
444:
441:
438:
437:
432:
427:
426:
420:
419:
415:
411:
407:
404:
399:
394:
393:
392:
388:
384:
380:
377:
376:
371:
366:
361:
354:
346:
342:
341:
340:
339:
334:
329:
328:
322:
319:
318:
313:
308:
303:
296:
287:
281:
276:
271:
264:
256:
255:Victoria Peak
251:
250:
249:
245:
242:
237:
232:
231:
230:
227:
224:
223:
219:
216:
212:
208:
207:
206:
205:
202:
198:
195:
190:
186:
183:. That scene
182:
179:
178:
175:
171:
167:
166:TheOtherSiguy
163:
159:
158:
155:
154:
150:
146:
145:TheOtherSiguy
142:
138:
136:
133:
130:
129:
125:
122:
118:
115:
114:
113:
110:
109:
106:
103:
102:
98:
95:
87:
84:
82:
79:
76:
75:
71:
68:
67:
63:
59:
55:
49:
45:
39:
35:
29:
26:
19:
1016:
1015:
1011:
1010:
969:
948:
933:
932:
915:
903:
886:
868:
854:per Fir0002
851:
834:
804:
800:
796:
783:
743:
741:
711:
707:
684:
683:
601:
522:
521:
514:original nom
477:
476:
423:
422:
417:
416:
379:Weak support
378:
326:
320:
234:unbalanced.
225:
221:
217:
180:
162:weak support
161:
140:
139:
131:
127:
123:
116:
111:
104:
100:
96:
91:
57:
47:
37:
27:
936:weak oppose
874:victorrocha
754:HDR imaging
58:Existing FP
1041:Categories
988:The Center
986:, if it's
984:The Center
949:especially
658:(Contribs)
554:(Contribs)
406:(Contribs)
244:(Contribs)
222:discussion
197:(Contribs)
128:discussion
101:discussion
92:regards, —
975:Hong Kong
908:Acalamari
891:Cacophony
750:Hong Kong
640:antilived
610:antilived
594:Hong Kong
518:antilived
81:Hong Kong
956:M.nelson
1018:Nautica
916:Support
904:Support
887:Support
852:Support
839:Kaldari
801:neutral
789:Fir0002
784:Support
746:Support
708:Comment
686:Nautica
524:Nautica
479:Nautica
425:Nautica
181:Comment
117:Support
85:Creator
996:Base64
947:, and
920:Krm500
869:Oppose
835:Oppose
744:Oppose
655:(Talk)
650:Diliff
625:Base64
551:(Talk)
546:Diliff
500:Base64
418:Oppose
403:(Talk)
398:Diliff
383:Golbez
321:Oppose
241:(Talk)
236:Diliff
215:αἰτίας
194:(Talk)
189:Diliff
121:αἰτίας
94:αἰτίας
88:Base64
69:Reason
970:Night
742:Weak
327:BRIAN
16:<
1023:Shad
1000:talk
992:here
960:talk
924:talk
895:talk
878:talk
860:talk
843:talk
818:LXIV
812:βαςε
797:Info
767:LXIV
761:βαςε
725:LXIV
719:βαςε
691:Shad
629:talk
614:here
596:and
580:and
574:haze
566:smog
529:Shad
504:talk
484:Shad
459:LXIV
453:βαςε
430:Shad
387:talk
358:LXIV
352:βαςε
345:this
332:0918
300:LXIV
294:βαςε
268:LXIV
262:βαςε
170:talk
149:talk
994:?--
982:or
1043::
1028:es
1014:--
1002:)
962:)
926:)
897:)
889:-
880:)
872:--
862:)
845:)
696:es
653:|
631:)
592:,
588:,
576:,
572:,
568:,
549:|
534:es
506:)
489:es
435:es
401:|
389:)
239:|
192:|
172:)
151:)
60:.
998:(
958:(
922:(
893:(
876:(
858:(
841:(
824:™
773:™
731:™
627:(
502:(
465:™
385:(
364:™
306:™
274:™
226:•
218:•
168:(
147:(
132:•
124:•
105:•
97:•
64:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
