Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:2015 Ribblehead Viaduct 1.jpg

File:2015 Ribblehead Viaduct 1.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Aug 2016 at 12:44:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:2015 Ribblehead Viaduct 1.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:2015 Ribblehead Viaduct 1.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Bridges
•  Info all by -- Kreuzschnabel 12:44, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
•  Info Ribble Head Viaduct, Yorkshire Dales, England. I had in mind to just look for a good point of view but once I was there halfway up Whernside, the light became fascinating miraculous, changing rapidly. Unfortunately, I couldn’t catch an instant with both the viaduct being sunlit and a train running over it. Still, I think it’s a very good image of the structure and its surrounding. --Kreuzschnabel 12:44, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
•  Support -- Kreuzschnabel 12:44, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
•  Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 12:52, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Sky is a bit light but I can live with that, always tricky to get the right light on a wide vista with the clouds moving about. I also like the way the arches of the viaduct sort of "mirror" the bluff. This photo's got more curves than Mae West! ;) w.carter-Talk 12:57, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
•  Support great! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:51, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
•  Support INeverCry 19:12, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose Bad DoF (2,8) and what are all those white dots on the mountains? not good quality and bad light. Low Wow for me --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 21:36, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose - I like the viaduct, but the glary light in the sky and distant ridge unfortunately spoils it for me, and since that ridge is such an important part of the picture, I don't think cropping it out would be a good idea. I hope you have a chance to take photos of this view again. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:00, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment I have little hope to catch that kind of lighting again, and the viewpoint is accessible per foot only so you cannot just pop up there to take a photo when it seems suitable --Kreuzschnabel 09:06, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Understood. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:53, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
    • And as someone said earlier: "Anyway, we judge images as they are nominated without taking the circumstances into account." w.carter-Talk 09:58, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
      • "I don’t give a damn about the silly babble I uttered yesterday" (w:Konrad Adenauer) ;-) Really, I appreciate all of your comments on either side, the more as I am quite aware this image is not perfect. --Kreuzschnabel 19:49, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
•  Info Just to set things straight : f/2,8 doesn't necessarily mean "Bad DoF". Depending on the subject, everything may (or not) fall into "focal plane" (or close enough to it, so that it doesn't appear out of focus). To me everything is in focus here. - Benh (talk) 07:11, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
  •  Info Distance to viaduct approx. 1.8 km. Maximum aperture of lens is f/1.8, maximum resulution about f/2.8, hyperfocal distance at settings given (calculatory) about 130 m. --Kreuzschnabel 09:06, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Impressive light. --Laitche (talk) 18:20, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
•  Support I don't see anything too wrong with it, and it's a great landscape. Daniel Case (talk) 19:25, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
•  Support --Ralf Roleček 06:50, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
•  Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:01, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
•  Comment More technical observation than a judgement on featurability, but the image looks quite strange at 100%, especially the stone wall and shrubs in the lower third. ISO 200 should not require much denoising, yet it looks a bit like denoised and resharpened. Looks like good camera and good lens, so is it the raw converter? --DXR (talk) 07:37, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose absolute wrong colors: saturation or what else ... candy colors?!? --Alchemist-hp (talk) 07:46, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
•  I withdraw my nomination Thanks for all your critical comments which made me think another time, and I came to the conclusion you are right about the technical quality. This has been done by RawTherapee of the raw image file, yet I somehow overdid it. I’ll re-nominate another version derived from the JPG out-of-camera. --Kreuzschnabel 07:58, 29 July 2016 (UTC)