Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Rome (IT), Ponte Sisto -- 2013 -- 4093.jpg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

File:Rome (IT), Ponte Sisto -- 2013 -- 4093.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Dec 2014 at 17:02:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Ponte Sisto at night in Rome, Italy
  •  Info created by XRay - uploaded by XRay - nominated by XRay -- XRay talk 17:02, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- XRay talk 17:02, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Nice picture. I have some questions/comments:
    1. When I just look at it, and especially when my eyes follow the top of the bridge the photo looks like it could need a clockwise rotation. When I further look at the mirror lines where the three pillars meet the water I note they are also quite far from being on a horizontal line, again indicating it could need a clock-wise tilt. But I am not sure though as it depends on the exact position of the vantage point. I assume the photo was taken from Ponte Guiseppe Mazzani? It appears you did not take the shot from the middle of that bridge, which would be the obvious choise (not knowing the place myself). Was there a good reason for picking the exact vantage point? Please consider if the proportions are as they should be. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:39, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    2. I always find it hard to get the right white balance in a shot like this. In your photo, I find there is a quite noticeable yellow cast and even the (I suppose green?) foliage looks rather yellow. Are you sure the WB is approximately correct? -- Slaunger (talk) 20:39, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    3. IMO the composition could be improved by cropping both at the top and bottom, giving a larger aspect ratio, emphasizing that the main subject is significantly longer, than it is high. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:39, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    4. You have an 18 Mpixel sensor, but the nomination 'only' has half that resolution (in pixels). I suppose it is downsampled to about half the original pixels? The noise level is extremely low. I would recommend not downsampling to unravel more details - or do it less aggressively. I do not think the noise level would become unacceptable from doing that. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:39, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • ✓ Fixed First of all: Thank you for your review and your comments. They are very helpful. I've made a perspective correction with the lights and the water reflections. So it should be OK now. You're right, the photo was taken from Ponte Mazzani. On the left there were disturbing elements. So the photo is taken from the left of Ponte Mazzani. You're right, the white balance got changed. There is too much blue in this image. In the original shot there is really too much yellow. The crop is changed at the top and the bottom. And finally the noise level is changed now and the file size is increased. Hopefully everything is fine now.--XRay talk 16:22, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support A significant improvement . All good for me. --Slaunger (talk) 19:49, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just a quick response to your issue of white balance in images like this. The problem is that it's fundamentally impossible to fix. The yellow lighting used is sodium vapour, and it produces light of a very limited wavelength. This means that if there are no other light sources with a wider spectrum, no matter what white balance you try to use, the light will be monochromatic. All you will do is change the colour of the monochromatic light. ;-) See here. Sodium lighting scores lower than any other form of lighting. They are cheap and nasty, but because they are quite energy efficient, they are typically used in street lighting. Good for municipal power bills, bad for photography. Diliff (talk) 23:05, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose. As per my comments on the lighting above, I find it difficult to support. Yes, it's a photo of the bridge at night, but if it were taken in the blue hour, we'd at least have a counteracting source of lighting that would avoid rendering it rather monochromatic. Diliff (talk) 23:20, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative[edit]

  • An Alternative in black and white. --XRay talk 11:46, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose. To be clear, I was opposing the previous image above because it was monochromatic, not because it was yellow. The same problem applies to this image in B&W IMO. And yes, this is a reflection of my views as discussed in length on the FPC talk page. As a general rule, I don't believe that landscapes and buildings in B&W are most useful to Wikipedia. There are exceptions, but this is unfortunately not one of them. Diliff (talk) 12:14, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 09:03, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Rome_(IT),_Ponte_Sisto_--_2013_--_4093.jpg&oldid=143384162"