Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Luzern Kapellbruecke.jpg

Image:Luzern Kapellbruecke.jpg - not featured

•  Info right now the highest resolution image of this bridge catched in its entire width, all by Ikiwaner 22:55, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
•  Support Dori | Talk 00:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

  Withdrawn due to changes. Dori | Talk 04:32, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

•  Neutral a great photo...if only those waving tourists weren't there. Have to think about it..--AngMoKio 07:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
•  Oppose Nice pic, but it has a bad composition (central). I'd probably support some nice crop. --Erina 08:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
•  Oppose. Soft focus, and people grinning and waving :-). People are ok in a shot of busy place, but this looks too much like a family album shot. By the way I cannot understand the complaint about the composition at all! What would you crop away, it'll be parts of the bridge. Why would you want to do this?! Cutting off parts of the subject would lessen the pictures value. Whats up with that anyways, once a picture deviates from a standard out-of-the-book composition it immediately gets opposed? --Dschwen 09:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I just don't like it and when I wonder why, the first thing that comes into my mind is composition. --Erina 12:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I understand that not everybody takes the (small) weaving tourists as a subtle irony and I thank you for the detailed comments. But the image is not soft focus. You can see that the resolution is even below one pixel if you have a look at the bridge pylons. --Ikiwaner 17:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, check the tower. It takes 5px to completely transition from shadow to sky. So I'd say the Image can be downsampled by about a factor of 3. Some people go great lengths and take mosaic pictures and downsample to get perfectly sharp pictures (check Image:Amsterdam_Canals_-_July_2006.jpg or Image:Radcliffe_Camera,_Oxford_-_Oct_2006.jpg for good examples). This one does indeed have a soft focus. Anyway, I wouldn't object a picture solely on this point, but it contributes to my oppose. --Dschwen 17:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

•  Oppose A little bit unsharp, a little bit dark, a little bit boring, a little bit of a tourist-shot - altogether too many such little flaws for FP-quality. Roger McLassus 18:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
•  Neutral Quit ok, a little bit to unsharp as allready said. But i prefer my own picture of the Kapellbrücke --Image:Kapellbruecke.JPG -- Simonizer 20:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
•  Oppose For all that has been said and also after compairing the picture with Simonizer's. -- Alvesgaspar 20:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
•  Info I replaced the image with one with better actuance (sharpness) and decreased contrast slightly. --Ikiwaner 17:24, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
•  Comment You decreased contrast and saturation a little to much. --Digon3 02:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
•  Comment it looks like you didn't only sharpen, but tried a noise reduction at the same time. The result are washedout softened areas such as the tower and the wood boards of the bridge, and aliased oversharpened areas like the flowers (check at full size!) and the people to the very right. --Dschwen 06:51, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
•  Comment I agree that this is worse than the previous one (which I thought was good enough). Dori | Talk 04:32, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Day 7: 0 support, 4 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured Roger McLassus 10:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC)