Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Charles Bridge

Bridge Tower, Malá Strana, Prague, Czech Republic

 * Reason:It has a high EV. There is not such a detailed and good picture currently available of this part of the Charles Bridge on Wikipedia. Further more it possesses a good technical quality. As for the composition; A restoration of this part of the Charles Bridge in currently underway. That's why it was hard to get a good picture of it. I hope the picture will be good enough. I even had to crop the picture (something I never do..).
 * Articles this image appears in:Prague, Malá Strana, Charles Bridge and Prague 1
 * Creator:Massimo Catarinella

Comment I attached the spires, so restored the picture. This version is the current nomination. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 13:58, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Support as nominator --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 13:53, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose -- The lights in the walkway are too overexposed. They really get in the way. (Giligone (talk) 16:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC))
 * They are not overexposed..If you don't believe me, check the photograph's histogram. That does not lie. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 16:39, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Support. Very good picture. Intothewoods29 (talk) 17:21, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I don't find the composition appealing; the fact that it's difficult to get a good picture of the bridge during the restoration may mean that an FP is just not possible.  I also think the lighting detracts from it; a daylight shot would be more useful and provide better contrast on the details of the main subject.  As for the walkway lights noted by Giligone, they are definitely overexposed according to my image program.--ragesoss (talk) 20:00, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The composition..that's your opinion. How would a daylight shot be better? It doesn;t provide a better contrast and the details of the main subject couldn't be better. I can even see the cracks in the bricks of the tower. A daytime picture would only mean more people. Here is the histogram (Click on it to see it.):

None of the spikes go through the roof so to say.. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 20:14, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Just upload a crop of the histogram; otherwise it's a copyright violation.
 * You're not interpereting the histogram correctly. The horizontal axis represents how light or dark pixels are. The far left is black, the far right, white. The bars themselves represent how many pixels are of that brightness. A spike that goes through the roof just means there are a lot of pixels that brightness; a landscapes, for example, usually have a spike or two because all the pixels in the sky are about the same brightness, though it's not necessarily overexposed. On the other hand, any pixels that are pure white (i.e., that are on the right-most part of the graph) are overexposed. If there is even a short bar there, you have overexposed pixels. Thegreenj 22:57, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your explanation. I guess I had a thing or two wrong in my head for all this time. So a small part is over- and a small part underexposed. Ok, it that case I said nothing. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 23:07, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Support Good EV, nice shot. Pie is good   (Apple is the best)  02:39, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Edit 2 Oh come on, the criticisms (see the votes before restoration (full disclosure: I was one of them)) were all dealt with and now the criticisms just coming off as anal retentive coming up with new things to oppose this for, I'm happy to support the edit 2 version of this since it took care of the cropping and other issues. Cat-five - talk 21:40, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose I'm generally not a fan of twilight shots for their own sake, and this would have been better under certain daylight conditions.  Unfortunately, everything bathed in artificial light  in this picture appears mildly to completely overexposed.Mostlyharmless (talk) 00:47, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Only three lamps are overexposed..and the overexposure is slight. Further more nothing was bathed in artificial light, since all the lights were already out! This was taken at dawn. If this is the criticism I wonder how all night/dusk/dawn photo's could have become a FP. For example: User Dillif' shot of the Colosseum contains slightly less overexposure, but it is still there and even more underexposure!. The same goes for user BenH' of the Paris skyline. Again, the underexposure on Dillif' shot of the Palace of Westminster leaves whole parts of the building black, but somehow the all seem to have become FPs.  --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 09:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, granted in the strict technical sense they are not overexposed. But the concentration of very bright lights in that one spot of the photo draws your eye. And thats not what you want your eye to be drawn to. Perhaps because of those lights an FP of that location is not possible. (Giligone (talk) 16:02, 22 September 2008 (UTC))


 * The lamps are burnt out, and this is very distracting on this shot. The fix is very nicely done though so I'll remain neutral, but this still doesn't impress me. Having a look at it again, I'm now thinking that dusk doesn't suit the subject well. Notice that only three lamps lit the scene and no window has light behind. No lights to lit the buildings as well (even very basic flood lamps). The pictures you are referring to have plenty of light sources which give of much more enchanting atmosphere, and which is why dusk pictures can be so beautiful. This is just my opinion though. Blieusong (talk) 19:50, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You're pictures by the way deserve to be FP's. I might try to lower the saturation, so that the light are less orange. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 20:26, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Lighting was against you (I insist, only three lamps !!)... and I think it's very nice you managed to get something this good out of that. Other wikipedians like the picture, so wait and see :) Blieusong (talk) 21:13, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I've created a less saturated version. Let me know if it is better than the current version. http://massimo.catarinella.nl/IMG_5328.jpg --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 22:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I prefer the less saturated version, but this isn't why I don't support it... The lighting of the scene is the issue to me. Blieusong (talk) 17:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak Support Edit2 The mixed lighting is a little off putting - it would be better either shot a little later to reduce the contrast between sky and artificial or a little earlier to push the emphasis onto the sodium lighting. However my initial complaints have all been addressed. Mfield (talk) 18:54, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Support Edit 3 I've uploaded edit 3, which I think helps greatly with the disturbing lighting variation, though it's still a minor problem. Thegreenj 01:48, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose any of them. The top of the tower is almost cropped, and the overall quality is not so "wow".--Caspian blue (talk) 12:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The top of the tower is far from being cropped and the quality couldn't be better unless I would have shot it with and 1D or some camera similar to that one.... --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 14:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Support (edit 3) - This one has obviously been improved over the original, the lights in the walkway most definitely do not look as bad. Matthuxtable (talk) 20:55, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose any of them. And this is my opinion, the composition is uncomfortable, especially the tight crop. --Base64 (talk) 08:19, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

MER-C 10:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)