Why was this historic Art Deco not accepted for grainy photo

rufoushumming-PGOrufoushumming-PGO Posts: 1,374 ✭✭✭✭✭

Does this seem right? And the nomination says as it seems to be taken from a car. ARGH

Taking photos of this building is so hard at 11 stories tall.

I think I will go for an interior photo next.

Anyway any ideas anyone..... And yes I am gobsmacked it does not yet exist as a POI. I was full on expecting duplcation. That would have made sense ;-)

The Grace. The iconic "industrial art deco Federation Gothic" building in Sydney.

Sydney NSW




The Grace Building opened in 1930 for the Grace Brothers. Requisitioned by government in WW2. A US forces HQ under General Douglas Macarthur and HQ for the British Royal Navy Pacific operations. Design is heavily influenced by US architecture and in particular the Chicago Hearld Tribune building. NSW Heritage listed in 1999. Contributing to the social history, aesthetic and technical leadership in NSW. Design is also known as Skyscraper Gothic with Art deco interior - neo gothic deco exterior. Now a hotel.


46-52 King St, Sydney NSW 2000, Australia

Supplemental Information

This is a unique building in both NSW and Australia. It is a great place to explore with public access through the art deco lobby. There are numerous cafes, bars and services located downstairs which provide loads of social sharing spaces. One of its heritage listing includes - historic place to socialise. It is on the Sydney Walk tour route if exercise with discovery is your thing. Heritage listing here https://bit.ly/3CLf5wk wikipedia listing here https://bit.ly/3o2LRVz and City of Syney Historic Walks Map (#17) here https://bit.ly/3o3JAcH Not only is it heritage listed but the entire block is subject to Local Environmental Planning orders.


  • CipherBlakk-PGOCipherBlakk-PGO Posts: 309 ✭✭✭✭

    Seems obvious to me that the photos show the same building. Perhaps there are better angles, or an interior lobby might also work

    But the rejection reason for bad photo isn't wrong. They're not blurry but they ARE grainy - or rather VERY pixelated. Did you use one too many sharpening functions or did you crop from a much bigger photo? Or is your camera - sorry to say - just very bad?

  • X0bai-PGOX0bai-PGO Posts: 1,667 ✭✭✭✭✭

    The rejection reason chosen is “low quality photo,” which this is. The explanation of “too dark or taken from a car” which was given to you is overly-specific and unhelpful. The thrust is that reviewers are rejecting based on your main image, which I think is a correct rejection.

    The title/description edits suggested above would also serve this nomination well.

  • Nadiwereb-PGONadiwereb-PGO Posts: 1,119 ✭✭✭✭✭

    This is NOT a bad quality photo, or at least definitely not bad enough to warrant a rejection. The subject of the photo is perfectly identifiable and it can be used to confirm the building's location. It is a bit grainy because of the zoom, but this is a massive building and the detail OP decided to highlight is high up.

    Wayfarer is not a photography art class. People take pictures of objects with their phones, on the street. This is a perfectly acceptable photo. If someone can make a better one, they can add it to the Wayspot and that's it.

  • HankWolfman-PGOHankWolfman-PGO Posts: 4,684 ✭✭✭✭✭

    The supporting photo does a much better job of capturing the building than the main photo does.

  • X0bai-PGOX0bai-PGO Posts: 1,667 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited October 2021

    A quick Google search confirms the existence of some 2000+ images of this building, all of which appear at a glance to be better than the one submitted here. This one is poorly angled, poorly centered, grainy, and generally does not represent the building well. If the nomination was for the knob on the top of the pole at the apex of the building, rather than the building itself, this might have been the image to choose. As it stands, it will not take a lot of time or effort to produce a better image, as previously demonstrated by 2000+ others. In fact, it would take far more time and effort to submit a better photo, wait for that to clear voting, then wait for that to get upvoted as the new primary, rather than get it right on the first try.

  • X0bai-PGOX0bai-PGO Posts: 1,667 ✭✭✭✭✭

    By the way, it looks like the CBD Hotel right across the street has an image of The Grace on its portal? Is that why you submitted the image you did, is you think it could get rejected as a duplicate?

  • AScarletSabre-PGOAScarletSabre-PGO Posts: 754 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Whilst the photograph arguably could be improved (though I personally would not reject this nomination based on the photograph used) I see the main issue being the clunky title. One has to - sadly - remember that reviewers appear not to like to read stuff. Therefore, if a nomination does not immediately stand out, they might be inclined to reject it.

  • Xaerfaal-PGOXaerfaal-PGO Posts: 86 ✭✭✭

    The photo in the suplemental information section looks better than the one you nominated the place for, imo.

  • Kellerrys-INGKellerrys-ING Posts: 696 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Could the photo be better? Absolutely.

    Can one recognize the building? Absolutely.

    Is there a case for for "bad quality photo" rejection? Absolutely not.

  • rufoushumming-PGOrufoushumming-PGO Posts: 1,374 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited October 2021

    Thanks Oscar. yes Title probably too long. Will redo with suggested description and supporting amendments. Reading this I just looked at one of my other nominations and noted the extra non necessary stuff I put in supporting information. Bad habit I keep repeating.. Must break. Thank you

    Camera phone is probably getting a bit old - but hey my S9 works just fine after all these years so seen no need to change it

    On a desktop or laptop image does appear grainy. On a phone - photo looks great ;-)

    I will amend. I get the point of views on this. Lots of little things will make it better

    Thank you all!!!

Sign In or Register to comment.