Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Hammersmith Bridge

Hammersmith Bridge, London
Voting period ends on 27 Apr 2012 at 09:46:12 (UTC)
 * Reason:It's high resolution, detailed, aesthetically lit at dusk, and taken from a location that gives probably the most complete view of the bridge (short of taking it from a boat on the Thames, but I'm not sure the angle would be as good).
 * Articles in which this image appears:Hammersmith Bridge
 * FP category for this image:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
 * Creator:User:Diliff

--Dusty 777 17:45, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support as nominator -- &#208;iliff   &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  09:46, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Question - What's that streak of motion blur halfway across the bridge? Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:36, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * A bus. It's a panorama of four segments with a 2 second exposure each. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  10:49, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * 3/4 Support (if possible); if this comes down to the wire, full support. I'm not big on the bus in the image, but it's to be expected unless the bridge were closed down. Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:53, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Other Question Given the curvature of the Thames there, isn't the other bank of the river best for fitting the most of the bridge into the picture? I'm asking because you mention the location gives the most complete view. - Blieusong (talk) 16:44, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Good question, but no, I found that it wasn't better on the other side. One big reason is that the other side of the bridge has lots of trees which obscure the view. I took this a little earlier in the evening and had to push a few small trees and shrubs out of the way and had to very carefully position the camera so that all the bigger trees were not in front of the bridge. And if you look at the curvature, you see that it quickly curves away from the bridge anyway, limiting the view of the near-side even more. I also tried the same bank of the Thames as this photo except on the other side of the bridge, but there is a high wall that makes setting up a tripod almost impossible (and there's an ugly pontoon in the foreground too). I tried, I really did. :-) &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  17:21, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oops... I thought you were on the other side (south)... I don't know how I zoomed in from the coordinates! That's why I had doubts... :) (I shouldn't, given your contributions). I was actually thinking about that place with the high wall as well after a glance at Google map. - Blieusong (talk) 19:52, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose Good quality, and nice timing, but not a very eye catching picture imo. Maybe framing is tight on the sides. The subject itself is a bit dark, which diminishes EV a little, hence my oppose. - Blieusong (talk) 19:52, 18 April 2012 (UTC)]
 * Support. That's gorgeous. The bus is a little weird looking, but the picture is so good it doesn't matter. Clegs (engage in rational discourse) 07:14, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support This bridge is a very beautiful bit of civil engineering, and I think this twilight long exposure shows this up really well.TehGrauniad (talk) 12:29, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Very impressive... Although, it would be more preferable if the bridge was slightly more illuminated (to allow us to view the color of the bridge and stuff,) I don't think that is a big deal in this case. Dusty 777 17:14, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Reluctant oppose due to the streaked car lights. Unless streaking is an intentional artistic effect then I'd prefer to see the normal look of the cars. Pine(talk) 07:12, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Whether it's intentionally 'artistic' or just the inevitable consequence of a long exposure, does it matter? You would need a photo taken in daylight to see the cars clearly (and they would be far more distracting IMO). &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  04:50, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support --Morning Sunshine (talk) 11:02, 22 April 2012 (UTC)