Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Vasco da Gama Bridge B&W (crop).jpg

File:Vasco da Gama Bridge B&W (crop).jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Feb 2019 at 09:32:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Vasco da Gama Bridge B&W (crop).jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Vasco da Gama Bridge B&W (crop).jpg

13

129

5143

2770

5169

3883

Suggested crop

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Bridges
•  Info created by William Warby - uploaded by Bruce1ee - nominated by Bruce1ee -- —Bruce1ee^talk 09:32, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
•  Support -- —Bruce1ee^talk 09:32, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --Harlock81 (talk) 10:07, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
•  Support -- Seven Pandas (talk)`
•  Oppose I like this but I vote against because of technical issues: noisy, oversharpened, hot pixels, perspective. f/16 is not a good option on Micro Four Thirds. --Basotxerri (talk) 18:02, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Basotxerri, I'm guessing they used f/16 to maximise the exposure time, probably in combination with an ND filter. -- Colin (talk) 19:14, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

• Hi Colin, I know that f/16 probably was chosen for maximising the exposure time but you can do that by using a second ND filter two. The problem is that on Micro Four Thirds, you'll suffer quality loss up from smaller apertures than f/8. f/16 on MFT is the equivalent of f/32 on Full Frame. --Basotxerri (talk) 20:10, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

•  Comment I think a 16:9 crop would be better: there's too much grey sea. -- Colin (talk) 19:13, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

• I agree, your suggestion is a better crop. --Basotxerri (talk) 20:12, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

• I agree, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:40, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

•  Neutral on technical reasons (regardless of the crop, but I do agree it will be an improvement). Note that B&W does tend to hide flaws such as grain and unsharpness compared to the color image. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:23, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
•  Weak support, a bit noisy :\ ― Gerifalte _Del Sabana 05:51, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Alternative

•  Info 16:9 crop as suggested. —Bruce1ee^talk 06:31, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
•  Support —Bruce1ee^talk 06:31, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
• Weak  Support - I think what Gerifalte is seeing as noise, I'm seeing as grain. Anyway, I like the photo, but it's a close case on whether it should be featured or not. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:40, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
• Weak  Support impressive composition, not too happy about the noise --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:54, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
•  strong support I don't care about the noise. I could print this at A3 size and given an appropriate viewing distance it would not be apparent. What I do find a bit irritating is the sharpening halo along the bottom of the bridge. And maybe I'd try taking the edge off the highlights in the sky a bit more; I find those almost-white patches a bit distracting. Otherwise: just plain awesome. --El Grafo (talk) 09:48, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
•  Support This is a good example of long-exposure to blur the sky and sea, providing contrast between soft and hard, formless and form. It is a picture to be enjoyed as a whole, not under a magnifying glass. The white cables against dark sky are a good catch. Even with this 16:9 crop it is still 15MP so pixel level sharpness or noise is not important for this kind of image, and would be irrelevant if printed. -- Colin (talk) 18:40, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
•  Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 23:30, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
•  Support Daniel Case (talk) 23:16, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:56, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
•  Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:21, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
•  Support -- An excellent picture! MartinD (talk) 11:58, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
•  Support Noisy but very nice -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:31, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 21:38, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
• Weak  Oppose Great view but too much noise, it needs to be adressed --Poco² 06:45, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
•  Support Great (the often mentioned noise doesn’t bother me, per El Grafo and Colin). --Aristeas (talk) 17:57, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
•  Support excellent. JukoFF (talk) 00:33, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
•  Support Outstanding long exposure shot. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 16:36, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
•  Slightly stronger support than weak support Okay now we're talking... That crop really made a shocking difference; the grain/noise is still there but now the composition is excellent :) ― Gerifalte _Del Sabana 04:31, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --Cart (talk) 09:29, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 14:32, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Bridges

The chosen alternative is: File:Vasco da Gama Bridge B&W (crop2).jpg