Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Richmond Bridge Panorama.jpg

Richmond Bridge

 * Reason:High resolution and detailed
 * Articles this image appears in:Sandstone, Arch bridge, Richmond, Tasmania, Richmond Bridge, Tasmania
 * Creator:Noodle snacks


 * Support as nominator, prefer restitch --Noodle snacks (talk) 04:51, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Support restitched - Excellent picture -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'm wondering about the colouring on the bridge, it appears a bit bright, particularly at the right. I have a number of images of this bridge taken from both sides and even through the spans, and it's consistently considerably darker in relation to the surroundings. I was wondering if you've done some selective brightening to make the bridge stand out? Of course there could be other 'natural' reasons - perhaps it's just the sunlight hitting it at that angle on a cloudy day, perhaps they've cleaned it, who knows. Maybe you've got some other images you could compare it to as a check? I was also wondering about your dates on the image page which should give the date the image was taken - is this really photographed, edited, uploaded and nominated all on the same day, replacing your March/April version? (Along with the image below for that matter; in fact going on the times in the metadata the two images were taken only 1/2 an hour apart, which I suppose may be physically possible, so just wondering whether that's accurate or whether something unusual is happening with the dates/times)? --jjron (talk) 13:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Firstly the date and times are correct, take a look at the geocoding of the two images, they are within 15 minutes drive of each other. I did take a march version with a point and shoot but that was fairly crappy, the colours were wrong and it looked really oversharpened and too bright. I uploaded over the top as the vantage point is the same and it saved replacing the image in a bunch of articles. I deliberately waited until the sun came out before taking the shot (evident by the shadows under the arches) as it makes the sandstone look better. The contrast with this and the cloudy sky is probably what causes the brightness as I haven't done any selective brightening. I took another panorama in about july, but didn't upload it as part of the bridge was in shadow due to strong sunlight. The brightness and colours look realistic to me (and I believe my monitor is well calibrated). There are two reasons you may see the bridge looking darker if you search for images, either the sun wasn't out at the time of the shot, or the photograph was taken from the other side of the bridge, which is pretty much always in shadow. I could probably tweak the levels a little and upload an edit if you like. Noodle snacks (talk) 17:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough re the dates - must have been a busy day :-). The images I was referring to are my own unedited images, not ones I've randomly found on the net, which is why I was asking, and why I commented about the relative brightness compared to the surroundings. Admittedly lighting may not have been ideal when I took mine, but the colouring of the sandstone in them is consistent from both sides of the bridge, despite surrounding features being a similar brightness to yours - probably most similar to the colouring at the side of the lefthand arch. Perhaps they have cleaned the sandstone in the intervening three years. --jjron (talk) 07:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Support restitch only. The colours, etc, seem far more true to life now. --jjron (talk) 07:40, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - Left part is blurry. Maybe you can fix this ? Blieusong (talk) 17:51, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * In a similar fashion to the current Featured picture candidates/Pioneertown, California nomination, I think that the softness in those trees is a result of wind. I did take a shot centered at those trees then crop the left off so it isn't because I have caught the edge of my lens. Noodle snacks (talk) 21:04, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The extreme LHS looks like it's been stitched from an unfocused image - there is a very strong demarcation line between sharp and blurry. Hence Weak Oppose--Fir0002 05:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Should be fixed now, took the time to do a restitch omitting the guilty frame and adjusting the levels in a different fashion. I also used a different projection and it looks more realistic now, addressing most concerns. Noodle snacks (talk) 09:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Good job - Support --Fir0002 11:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Support restitch - Beautiful. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 03:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. Very nice, pleasing composition and the image quality and detail is top notch. The main that could improve your shots is if those damn dark clouds would go away. It's sad that I lived in Melbourne for 26 years and never once visited Tasmania. That will have to change at some point. :-) Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 12:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, its pretty much just this time of year unfortunately, it makes bird photography difficult as well as there is often not enough light, or the light is too soft for a pleasing shot. Noodle snacks (talk) 20:54, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

MER-C 12:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)