Original - The chalk cliffs of Beachy Head, a headland peak rising to 162 m (530 ft) above sea level. It is notable for being the tallest chalk cliff in Britain, and one of the most notorious suicide locations in the world.Edit 1 Horizon tilt corrected, based on sea horizon rather than light tower.
Reason
It's a sharp and interesting view of the cliffs of Beachy Head on a nice, sunny day, just a short walk along the coast from the Seven Sisters.
Comment FYI, the difference in rotation between these two pics is small indeed. But, for what it’s worth, the best delineation of a plumb line are the painted lines on the lighthouse and its walkway on top, all of which are probably exceedingly close to horizontal. It’s interesting to note that in aviation, if the sea surface is not visible at the horizon, IFR-rated (instrument flight rules) pilots are taught to ignore cloud formations, the leading edges of cloud banks, and similar effects and to instead focus on their instruments. Once can deduce nothing whatsoever about what is level by looking at the base of a cloud bank. Few would notice how level these pictures are, but the original appears to be more closely aligned to horizontal upon very close inspection. Greg L (talk) 23:29, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well you’re blunt. Ahhh… indeed. When the contrast is set to an extreme amount, what appears to be a horizon can be seen. And the rotated one is closer to horizontal. I stand corrected. Either is fine, anyway, with a preference now for Edit 1 (as noted above). Greg L (talk) 01:59, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support original. At the viewing size, the colors in the edit seem to be less bright than in the original, and the difference in tilt is rather small to begin with. Weak support edit. SpencerT♦Nominate!00:52, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If it seems less bright, it's because of your monitor tilt. No changes were made other than the rotation (and cropping back to a pixel-aligned rectangle). Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 01:23, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Or close to each other while side-by-side. Some LCD monitors have very pronounced contrast and brightness shifts within the small parallax angles produced by having one photo above another. This is not a problem on half-way-decent CRT monitors. I have both types on this computer (27-inch built-in LCD and 21-inch external CRT) for just these sort of reasons (though my son thinks my 21-inch Sony Trinitron is like a DeLorean: Cool, perhaps, at one time, but now a big fat anachronism). Greg L (talk) 03:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a strong opinion on the rotation (looked straight enough beforehand, but you could be right that you've improved it in the edit), but if you rotated and cropped the original uncropped version, there would be no loss of the edges (if you didn't already). Out of interest too, does anyone have an opinion on whether the crop of the current nominated image is too tight? I'm open to ideas. The original has a bit much empty space, but a crop somewhere in between might be preferable? Ðiliff«»(Talk)17:01, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support either... Can't see any diff between the two myself, even at full zoom and side by side images... So no pref between either... Gazhiley (talk) 22:10, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. What, nobody complaining about all those tourists in the shot? Nobody demanding them to be cloned out? Aww, times have surely changed at FPC ;-). --Dschwen19:51, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
