Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Sydney harbour bridge night

Sydney harbour bridge night[edit]

Sydney harbour bridge at night

Reason: A very high resolution image. And I think it's going to become rare since David is not giving us anymore super high resolution images. And I don't see any technical problems.
Articles this image appears in: Sydney Harbour Bridge
Creator: Antilived
Nominator: Arad

Support — Arad 17:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Undecided - It's got some great points, but is let down by the invisible road deck and the star pattern on the lights (is that a special lens?), and of course the blurred flags. I note that I'm using a particularly dark monitor - can only just make out one of the 4 circles at the top. Stevage 23:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think it has good points, noteably the resolution and focus, but a few thing kill it. Maybe what botheres me most is the composition. The subject seems to be the bottom of the bridge (where there is no lighting or interesting detail), also, we get a better view of the opra house than we do of the bridge. basicaly it poorly illistrates the subject. Then there are the bizzar star pattern on the lights which are very distracting. -Fcb981 01:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. This shot has a lot of good things going for it, but the lighting is just too dark for me. --Tewy 02:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I don't know why people complain that the image is dark. On my monitor it's pretty good. And the light effet is also very nice. I think the creator used a special lens. And we are seriously becoming too picky. This image and the image above are pretty good, and we discussed about this issue that the voter should lower their expectations from free contributers. --Arad 03:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No special lens used, just the diffraction pattern from a small aperture (f/8) per WP:RD/M#.22Stars.22_in_lights_in_night_time_photography. The tech data is just 3 sec exposure (which explains the blurred flag), f/8 using the Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 and Nikon D50 @ ISO 200. The bridge itself is very very dark in real life when I took it, so probably wrong time to do something like this... --antilived^{T | C | G} 03:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Experiments with the RAW files (4 stops brighter) showed that the sky is actually brighter than the road deck itself. I doubt that the road deck can be shown in any night time photograph without heavily blown highlights or editing. --antilived^{T | C | G} 04:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The whole pic is too dark - Adrian Pingstone 09:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Good image quality, but central subject (the bridge) is too dark - 85.139.196.32 20:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose. Good shot Antilived, but as you said (and as I try to do whenever possible), the lighting isn't ideal and it would have been a much better shot at twilight where the ambient light is a bit better. A similar shot to mine and probably only the equivalent of about 20-30 minutes later, but the lack of light makes quite a lot of difference. By the way, what ARE those blobs of black between the bridge supports? Looks like bad cloning or something. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 08:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those blobs are just my attempts to correct some green dots (lens flare I presumed) and thought that the background was black so I just painted black over them. Now I've uploaded a new version that properly cloned them out. --antilived^{T | C | G} 03:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, as above. enochlau (talk) 03:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support, its a picture that deserves to be recognized. I like the opera house in the background. Yaanch 18:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 22:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]