Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Erasmus Bridge, Rotterdam

Erasmus Bridge, Rotterdam

 * Reason:Major bridge, iconic for Rotterdam; important 20th century architectural design. Good representation of context. Good composition and lighting. Meets all FPC criteria.
 * Articles this image appears in:Erasmusbrug, Rotterdam, Nieuwe Maas, Ben van Berkel
 * Creator:Massimo Catarinella


 * Support as nominator --Elekhh (talk) 12:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not a fan of the composition at all. I'd say too much water. but it's a bridge, so that would be silly. What I will say is that the bridge isn't prominant enough in the image. First off, the building with the odd outward angled wall caught my eye too soon, second the main support, which has the highest EV, is small compared to the photo. Taking good pictures of long objects is hard, yes, but it can be done. If you live in the area or know someone who does, I suggest attempting it from the other side of the river, near the luxor building. This will enlarge the support beam and cut out the weird building.  Nezzadar   ☎   05:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: The picture illustrates four articles, not only the one on Erasmus Bridge and its architect but also the articles on Rotterdam and its indeed wide river.Elekhh (talk) 12:03, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose Level problems, it is bowed upwards in the centre. Noodle snacks (talk) 07:47, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you think this is a valid reason to oppose? The only "problem" there is concerning the levels, is that the image could be made brighter. This induces more noise though. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 17:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm talking about geometry, rather than brightness. Distorted straight lines are a misrepresentation of the scene and therefore not encyclopaedic. A restitch should be able to fix it with vertical control points. Noodle snacks (talk) 21:18, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * @ Elekh: I feel honored that you nominated a picture of mine. Thank you :).
 * @ Nezzadar: This is an encyclopedia. If a building is part of the scenery you shouldn't exclude it just to make a picture look prettier. Taking this panorama from the other side of the river....good look with that. The bridge tower is very high...that high you couldn't even make a vertical panorama from there. The only alternative location to take a photograph from of this bridge is the top of the Euromast. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 11:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Or perhaps from a boat. J Milburn (talk) 16:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that would work. You see, with all due respect to your photography, when taking shots of objects with non-standard geometry, all reasonable effort must be made to get an accurate shot. This would mean capturing the shot from an angle that minimizes angle distortion. In simpler terms, it doesn't look like is should, so consider taking a shot from dead center on the river. It will look better. Also, I still say the building in the left is distracting and does not contribute to the articles the image is on, especially the bridge and the architect pages. Nezzadar   [SPEAK]  22:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC) P.S. New sig!
 * Support at first it looks like the image is tilted but it's only the crazy architecture.--Avala (talk) 16:21, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I realized that, but to correctly capture said craziness, it needs a better angle and ideally would be closet to the subject. Nezzadar   [SPEAK]  21:34, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose Composition and distortion of the view.--Caspian blue 13:00, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose The bridge isn't done quite enough justice in this photo. -- Silversmith Hewwo 08:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

--jjron (talk) 11:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC)