Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 22 Feb 2012 at 07:19:33 (UTC)
Original – Australian Senate, Parliament of Australia, Canberra, Australia
Reason
Largely per the Australian House of Representatives image below. I jumped into the "no public access" section again and used similar shooting techniques. I used a different angle because the Senate Chamber is smaller, with fewer rows of seats. Again, it is the only "complete" shot of this chamber with all seating, and certainly the highest quality image on commons.
Support Great quality and solid EV. A version with all the senators there would have been much better, but if you'd tried to take that from the public galleries you would have been kicked out.
Nick-D (
talk)
07:49, 13 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Yeah, no photography is allowed whilst the Senate is in session. I did collect the appropriate contact details to get special permission, but it was a moot point - parliament was not sitting at any time during my visit.
JJ Harrison (
talk)
07:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Support. Good, and not that easy to get. Actually prefer this angle to the Reps one. Unfortunately they don't allow photography while parliament is sitting as JJ says (I've asked before). How did you get into the 'no access' area? They normally police that pretty tightly even when the chamber's empty (I'm just trying to place whether this is from floor level or the bottom of the gallery). Also looks to be a tiny stitching error where the carpet joins the wood almost at front centre. --
jjron (
talk)
08:04, 13 February 2012 (UTC)reply
This was the bottom of the gallery. I actually did walk around to the right hand side gallery thing, but the door was locked. I just moved the rope cordons out of the way when no one was looking, and then generally attempted to look like I was doing a job. :)
JJ Harrison (
talk)
08:15, 13 February 2012 (UTC)reply
I tried a few, Couldn't do it without chomping chairs off or having that bench in the foreground. The bench would probably cause stitching errors, and I used it to allow for long exposures (2.5 seconds) at low ISOs. They don't let tripods etc in.
JJ Harrison (
talk)
22:54, 13 February 2012 (UTC)reply
I was thinking of something like
this, but I understand they restrict non-official photos. My concern is that due to the use of wide-angle and eye level perspective, the chamber looks more elongated than it is. In fact the plan is a square, and the space also has a considerable height, so the volume is closer to a
cube which IMO is part of its distinct atmosphere. Nevertheless, it is a very good quality image. --
ELEKHHT23:33, 13 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment/Neutral Oppose -- I'm not really liking what appears to be rather drastic perspective. Lessens EV and steps slightly into "artistic" in my opinion. Beautiful image though. And the colors are awesome. –
JBarta (
talk)
23:29, 13 February 2012 (UTC)reply
After seeing the image
mentioned above I can see that not only is the perspective issue noticeable, but the result significantly misrepresents the room. Therefore I'm changing my "comment" to an "oppose". –
JBarta (
talk)
23:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Perhaps that is a better perspective, but I think it is a screenshot from a television camera in the roof. I hardly think the AFP would allow a ladder in to the room either, especially if politicians were sitting.
JJ Harrison (
talk)
07:35, 14 February 2012 (UTC)reply
While your image is prettier and more striking, I think
this image is a whole lot more encyclopedic. Regardless of your difficulty in getting the shot, the shot you did get rather severely misrepresents the room. And for me that fails it as one of Wikipedia's best. –
JBarta (
talk)
08:14, 14 February 2012 (UTC)reply