34:
157:. I'm really drawn to this photo. For nighttime architectural photography, it doesn't get much better than this. The softness adds a dreamlike quality, and it's just a whole lot of fun looking through the windows, trying to figure out what's going on inside. Starwiz, whether or not this makes FP, you have a publishable picture here. Shop it around. Cheers,
417:- A better than nothing illustration, and a vast improvement on the previous version in the article. However, if it is an iconic building it would be helpful to have a shot in daylight. And presumably it is normally a hive of activity. There is artistic merit in the work, but I find it just a bit eerie and depressing
303:
I'll be the first to admit that there are sharpness and CA problems with this image, but I just want to stick up for my EF-S 18-55 lens here. We have plenty of FPs taken on cheap point-and-shoot cameras, and the 18-55mm is perfectly capable of taking pictures which are much sharper than those. I
198:
Whilst a certain amount of tone mapping can certainly add to the encyclopedic value of a photograph I feel that in the case of this particular photo it's been somewhat overdone. It is too noisy and unsharp for an FP, and I think that a long exposure would have more benefit than an HDR shot in this
174:
Thanks for your encouragement, Pete. The sky here at
Stanford is a kind of haze at night--there's a lot of light pollution, and you can see very few stars. My best guess is that it came out reddish because I exposed the base shot for the HDR (which I used without modification for the roof, sky,
213:
clearly isn't FP quality.) When we look at the scene with our eyes, we can look at only part of it at once, and our eye adjusts to the brightness of the part we're currently viewing. Essentially, I used HDR to try and duplicate that process with the wide-angle shot. The picture really does
332:
I'm so sorry, I should have added 'for 100% upload' in my oppose. Just a clarification, I'm not trying to say that 18-55mm (Non-IS) is totally unsharp, but this image was uploaded as almost uncroped. Which makes me think that this image is unsharp. Images taken by point as shoot are mostly
208:
Regarding the use of tone mapping vs. a single long-exposure, just keep in mind that this image contains exposures from 30s to 1/3s. That's a lot of dynamic range to try to capture in one exposure. (In fact, I originally tried to, and the
214:
resemble what you see when you go there. That said, I'm not an expert on sharpening and de-noising. There may or may not be hope for improving this image in those areas, but I hope someone might be able to take a stab at it. --
333:
downsampled to smaller size first. Partial unsharp is not a problem, may be the 'out of focus' issue is the most dominant factor for bad sharpness. FYI, you may look at other 18-55mm user's opinion in the
479:
318:
The 18-55mm, both versions of it, are terrible. Chromatic aberration, poor sharpness even stopped down, poor build quality, a far cry from the newer IS version.
469:
17:
210:
455:
443:
426:
409:
383:
359:
327:
313:
298:
268:
242:
223:
203:
184:
166:
145:
126:
110:
98:
81:
474:
136:
Cool photo, interesting building, good encyclopedic value. Much improved over the previous versions -- though the softness is a negative.
175:
tree, and walkway) a bit more than the camera would have liked. I think it's cool, but it could obviously be changed if we wanted. --
262:
323:
94:
381:
352:
291:
319:
90:
276:
Not bad, but images produced by EF-S 18-55mm lens isn't sharp enough, plus there is CA. Nice HDR though. --
33:
54:
334:
257:
304:
just hope this image doesn't give anyone reason to oppose other pictures taken on this lens. --
89:
Seems quite soft and noisy in places when viewed at 100%, but the overall image is quite good.
439:
373:
Kind of out of focus, but I've never seen anything like it anywhere. I can't make up my mind.
309:
219:
180:
162:
141:
77:
422:
379:
345:
284:
238:
252:
107:
405:
463:
200:
435:
305:
215:
176:
158:
137:
120:
73:
62:
418:
374:
340:
279:
234:
452:
392:
199:
instance. It's certainly not without it's merits, but not FP material.
118:
I agree with HereToHelp, but otherwise it seems like a good image.
250:- Bizzare picture, kind of out of focus. But I'm drawn to it. ~
106:
Although it might benefit from noise reduction and sharpening.--
48:
A good free picture of an iconic building on
Stanford's campus.
233:- Not bad, but just not good enough of a photo for FP.
8:
40:- Stanford's James H. Clark Center at night.
18:Knowledge (XXG):Featured picture candidates
391:- Nice HDR.. And imo its sharp enough..
32:
434:- Too much HDR effect. Not realistic.
480:Featured picture nominations/May 2008
171:PS -- was the sky really that color?
7:
470:Ended featured picture nominations
28:James H. Clark Center at night HDR
24:
51:Articles this image appears in
1:
475:Featured picture nominations
496:
456:09:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
444:22:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
427:07:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
410:20:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
384:16:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
360:14:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
328:12:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
314:08:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
299:12:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
269:01:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
243:04:16, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
224:00:24, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
204:23:28, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
185:08:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
167:02:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
146:03:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
127:00:52, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
111:19:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
99:10:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
82:09:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
41:
55:James H. Clark Center
36:
320:Capital photographer
91:Capital photographer
70:Support as nominator
358:
297:
125:
42:
338:
277:
119:
487:
407:
402:
399:
396:
377:
357:
355:
349:
343:
296:
294:
288:
282:
265:
260:
255:
123:
495:
494:
490:
489:
488:
486:
485:
484:
460:
459:
406:
400:
397:
394:
375:
353:
350:
347:
341:
339:
292:
289:
286:
280:
278:
263:
258:
253:
121:
31:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
493:
491:
483:
482:
477:
472:
462:
461:
447:
446:
429:
412:
386:
368:
367:
366:
365:
364:
363:
362:
346:
285:
271:
245:
228:
227:
226:
192:
191:
190:
189:
188:
187:
169:
155:Strong Support
149:
148:
129:
113:
101:
84:
66:
65:
60:
57:
52:
49:
46:
30:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
492:
481:
478:
476:
473:
471:
468:
467:
465:
458:
457:
454:
451:
450:Not promoted
445:
441:
437:
433:
430:
428:
424:
420:
416:
413:
411:
408:
404:
403:
390:
387:
385:
382:
380:
378:
372:
369:
361:
356:
351:
344:
336:
331:
330:
329:
325:
321:
317:
316:
315:
311:
307:
302:
301:
300:
295:
290:
283:
275:
272:
270:
267:
266:
261:
256:
249:
246:
244:
240:
236:
232:
229:
225:
221:
217:
212:
207:
206:
205:
202:
197:
194:
193:
186:
182:
178:
173:
172:
170:
168:
164:
160:
156:
153:
152:
151:
150:
147:
143:
139:
135:
134:
130:
128:
124:
117:
114:
112:
109:
105:
102:
100:
96:
92:
88:
85:
83:
79:
75:
71:
68:
67:
64:
61:
58:
56:
53:
50:
47:
44:
43:
39:
35:
29:
26:
19:
449:
448:
431:
414:
393:
388:
370:
273:
251:
248:Weak Support
247:
230:
195:
159:Pete Tillman
154:
138:Pete Tillman
132:
131:
116:Weak support
115:
103:
86:
69:
37:
27:
464:Categories
108:HereToHelp
201:bad_germ
38:Original
436:Kaldari
389:Support
371:Neutral
306:Starwiz
216:Starwiz
177:Starwiz
133:Support
122:Spencer
104:Support
87:Neutral
74:Starwiz
63:Starwiz
59:Creator
432:Oppose
419:Motmit
415:Oppose
376:Thingg
335:review
274:Oppose
259:ldshal
235:Teque5
231:Oppose
211:result
196:Oppose
45:Reason
453:MER-C
16:<
440:talk
423:talk
348:LXIV
342:βαςε
337:. --
324:talk
310:talk
287:LXIV
281:βαςε
239:talk
220:talk
181:talk
163:talk
142:talk
95:talk
78:talk
466::
442:)
425:)
398:zm
326:)
312:)
264:42
254:Me
241:)
222:)
183:)
165:)
144:)
97:)
80:)
72:--
438:(
421:(
401:o
395:Y
354:™
322:(
308:(
293:™
237:(
218:(
179:(
161:(
140:(
93:(
76:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
