Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Brooklyn Bridge at Night

Brooklyn Bridge at Night


I like this image becuase it shows the beautiful surroundings arround the Brooklyn Bridge.


 * Nominate and support. -- Sam916 19:05, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Not currently used in any article. &mdash; 0918 BRIAN &bull; 2006-01-8 19:19
 * Support Someone has since added it to the Brooklyn Bridge article. It is a stunning photo that I think illustrates the bridge and its surroundings quite well. However, the original suffers from severe JPEG artifacts, and it's really too bad about the flag. I uploaded an edit, and while they are still visible, I don't think they are noticeable enough to prevent it from gaining FP status. &#126;MDD4696 20:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: I don't know... the image doesn't seem all that clear. It almost looks like a painting, not a photo. Personally, living 3 miles from the bridge, I've seen it look much better, and if someone dug harder a better picture could be found. I don't agree with the "surroundings" comment above, its true surroundings would show parts of Brooklyn and more of Manhattan, like the 1890 map in the article did. Not that it makes this photo bad, just that a surroundings argument doesn't really hold up. --JPM 21:56, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Seeing as I've never been there, you're probably right. I guess I need to be a bit more careful with my comments. &#126;MDD4696 22:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong support. I hope the very slight blurriness (or lack of clarity, or whatever) doesn't keep this stunning image from being featured. It just might look more like a painting than a photo - but there's no harm in that! Zafiroblue05 19:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong support either. It is a very nice shot, and I really like the way the lights reflect off the water. Gives it a kind of Cyberpunk look. JQF 21:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong support very good picture. -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 21:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * This is a very blurry picture. It only shows one of the spans, and the surroundings aren't exactly all that great.. especially since its in NYC and there are certainly more appealling angles.  Though, this is an interesting angle, and I'll admit I've never seen the bridge in this light.  Also, the image doesn't exactly provide much in the way of contrasts, and I'm afraid, because of the darkness and few colors in the image, that this is not salvagable.   drumguy 8800  - speak? 04:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Ya know, sorry. The first image isn't blurry.  The edited version is.. and it isn't exactly an improvement, whoever put it up..  drumguy 8800  - speak? 05:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * So ya know, drop what I said about the contrasts and lighting too. The first image is a lot better than the edited, which I viewed.  I still oppose due to the poor surroundings and lack of focus on the actual bridge..  drumguy 8800  - speak? 05:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Is it just the blurriness that you don't like about the edit I made? I rotated it slightly and tried to smooth out the JPEG artifacts, which unfortunately does smudge it up a bit. I was hoping that the edit would appeal to people who would've oppose based on the severe artifacting. &#126;MDD4696 23:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I've removed the edit since the original seems to be favored. &#126;MDD4696 22:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Support either. I sometimes wonder if pictures like this inspire the Need for Speed programers who do the maps. TomStar81 06:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support - Excellent. --KILO-LIMA 18:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose second. The second is not as good as the first. (I only don't support the first because I only support images created by wikipedians, but I do not oppose the first). --Gmaxwell 06:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Looks cool, but the bridge is awkwardly cut off and the foreground is distracting. It's also not as sharp as it could be. Camerafiend 22:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * ( + ) Support I really like the atmosphere. Being a country kid it is always wierd going into the city and seeing how the night sky looks - too bright and red --Fir0002 02:05, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. I wish I would take pictures like this. - Darwinek 23:04, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose - the foreground of wooden poles is too distracting. Flcelloguy (A note? ) 23:21, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Support - Shows towers in detail, as well as the support wires.--Tony (Talk), Vandalism Ninja 03:07, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. It's not a bad picture, but all in all there are just a few too many things I don't like about it: the poles in the foreground, the fact that you don't see all the way to the other end of the bridge and the lighting makes the wires in the bridge hard to see. enochlau (talk) 06:02, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support I like it. Eyesclosed 19:53, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Truly striking. Awesome.  Tosta Dojen 03:10, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose shows everything but the bridge. --Dschwen 10:53, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose I like the picture, but the foreground dominates this picture which is unfortunate. — Pix el8  06:20, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Nice shot, but somehow this doesn't really impress me. Maybe it's the dull color, the brown clouds - just a general murkiness, and the angle of the shot doesn't show the bridge at its best. --Janke | Talk 08:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose I don't like it. Too dark & unobjective... Spawn Man 03:17, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

. 12 supports and 9 opposes just isn't consensus enough for me to promote. Raven4x4x 09:11, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

