Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Chicago River at night

Chicago River at night
Voting period ends on 21 Jul 2010 at 16:39:34 (UTC)
 * Reason:I’ve been on one of the many boat tours of the Chicago River during the day. That section of Chicago is a bit like Venice, where the river is like a canal. I had no idea the river could be beautiful at night. I mention this because I suspect this nomination will live or die based on EV. I think it does have EV to illustrate what “Chicago River” looks like (at night). Clearly, it is gorgeous. I’m certain very many of our regular I.P. readership, when they are at Wikipedia’s main page, will stop on this one and click the link. Simply stunning.
 * Articles in which this image appears:Chicago River
 * FP category for this image:Chicago River
 * Creator:Mike Boehmer


 * Support as nominator --Greg L (talk) 16:39, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Support For a night image, this seems pretty good. I'm not a photography expert, but it does look to have quality. Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:15, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment This image should be added to Merchandise Mart and Kinzie Street railroad bridge (the raised bridge I believe) and maybe Franklin Street Bridge (which I think is the bridge to the right). If I could recall the name of the Holiday Inn building or the building to the left, I would suggest them also if they have articles.  I was at that Holiday Inn last spring when Toni Preckwinkle made her speach following her primary win.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:57, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Greg, you are the nominator. Can you respond to this comment.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:43, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * P.S. also relevant to show the surroundings for 333 Wacker Drive.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:45, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It has quite a load of artifacts in the bottom left part. My guess the come from using JPG files as the base for HDR-tonemapping. The operator that was used increases local contrast, which in flat dark areas leads to enhancement of noise/artifacts. Overall sharpness could be better, and while doing exposure bracketing the range should have been extended to shorter exposures. Almost al highlights are blown. For my taste the image is too flickr'ish gimmicky, puting an emphasis on making the scene look as colored and saturated as possible, rather than using the increased dynamic range to create an authentic rendition of the scene. --Dschwen 18:28, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I now see the jpeg-aggravated, dark-area noise at the very bottom-left in the water, Dschwen. I can easily fix that if it is an important deal-breaker for anyone here. As for the exposure chosen and the resultant brightness of the image and its color saturation: indeed, artsy flourish (“gimmicky,” as you put it) is an issue we often wrestle with here on pictures. Artsy flourish should be mostly verboten on daylight pictures. But pretty much any time exposure or time-lapse video are the sort of things the camera sees that the eye does not. What appeared at first to be defective pixels above the buildings proved to be some of the brighter stars visible at night. Given that some stars are visible in this picture—but not too many—this time exposure doesn’t seem to have strayed into *outlandish* territory for a night-adapted eye. Clearly, the picture “Avoids inappropriate digital manipulation.” I would hope that it passes because “at the end of the day” (my wife hates that expression), if this gets onto the Main Page for 24 hours, I think very many visitors will be truly captivated by the beauty of the image and will click on the article and will learn about how Chicago has a canal-like river. It sure is gorgeous. Greg L (talk) 19:13, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * While I'm nit-picking. The image appears tilted, and the verticals do not look well adjusted. There also are dark spots in the water that look like clipped and blackend highlights. All in all there are too many technical problems with this image. On top of that I do not like the style and I do not like the compositional decisions the photographer made. Everything is either very crammed almost touching the edge of the frame or is cut off. Chicago is not running away. This image should be re-shot, and not promoted in this state. Oppose. --Dschwen 20:58, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose, per Dschwen, flickr kitsch. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:14, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * “Kitsch”: Art that is considered an inferior, tasteless copy of an extant style of art or a worthless imitation of art of recognized value. Greg L (talk) 20:47, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. You were right about the EV thing. This is just another image in an image-heavy article, as far as I can see. Doesn't seem to be illustrating anything in particular. J Milburn (talk) 02:19, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Awwwe shucks. I see the voting ain’t goin’ well (and it’s so puurdy). Oh well… Greg L (talk) 03:13, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Greg, you should consider the half a dozen articles this image should be in. It is pretty foolish to seek EV approval based on the aritcle it is in.  It would have more EV in some of the articles I mentioned above.  However, if you are just clowning around with this nom as indicated by your post above, category choice and ignoring my advice, there is nothing I can say.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:48, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Suspension request This nomination should be suspended while I create 350 West Mart Center, for which it has a substantial EV.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:22, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Tony may I just point out that "It is pretty foolish" and "if you are just clowning around with this nom" isn't a very nice way of speaking to someone fella, just because Greg doesn't agree with pushing this into half a dozen pages... Gazhiley (talk) 10:07, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * We have been down this road before. I understand FPC EV is an odd bug, but by DYK, GAC, FPC, FLC, PR standards, this would be a good addition to a half-dozen articles. Which of the following articles would this be malplaced in:
 * 350 West Mart Center
 * Merchandise Mart
 * Kinzie Street railroad bridge
 * Franklin Street Bridge
 * 333 Wacker Drive
 * The tall building across the North Branch from 350 West Mart Center (333 North Canal Street)
 * The tall building to the east of Merchandise Mart (300 North LaSalle)
 * I'll also say that nominations are not generally suspended to develop articles. Suspension is normally used to address technical problems with a picture.  Jujutacular  T · C 13:25, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * In this case the article for which it has the most EV was discovered to be a redlink, which is probably not normal for an FPC nom and which might make this and exception.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:10, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see how the picture's EV will increase in that article beyond what it is right now. It's a very decent stub.  Jujutacular  T · C 15:56, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Tony, I am for suspending this nomination. Some editors, like Alchemist, think the picture is too stylized and it will no-doubt get opposition votes next time around on that. But another set of editors feel the image has lack of EV. If you know of an article (or several) in which this picture adds EV, then… great. I retract my nomination of this image. If this picture is nominated again, I’ll let you do so; you can count on my vote. Greg L (talk) 16:19, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

--Makeemlighter (talk) 22:49, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Withdrawn by nominator. Makeemlighter (talk) 22:49, 13 July 2010 (UTC)