Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Tower Bridge Twilight

Tower Bridge Twilight
I realise that I already have a FP of this subject, but I feel that compositionally and artistically this is a superior image. I just really like the atmosphere of this shot. The resolution is far lower though as it is only a four segment panorama (not ~50 as in the previous FP, which is the largest panorama I've ever made, by the way!) but obviously resolution isn't everything. This one is 2500x1265 so it should be enough detail. If necessary, I'm happy for the previous FP to be delisted, but as both images have different strong points (composition vs detail), perhaps it isn't necessary.


 * Nominate and support. - Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 01:17, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose Support whichever version that Diliff thinks is best, even if it's the queen version. I like the older one better: it has a non-distracting, easy on the eye sky (a very saturated blue sky is just a bit too much...), the light is softer and less perspective distortion. -- antilived T 01:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually there is more perspective distortion on the other one.. Look at the lean on the bridge supports. And the sky was actually like that.. I didn't increase the saturation at all. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 01:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I think I understand what you mean by perspective distortion, sorry. I'm assuming you mean the difference in height between each tower - I was just slightly closer to the bridge so the camera is looking 'up' at the bridge somewhat more. In terms of distortion though, I still maintain that the previous image is less corrected - it leans towards the middle somewhat. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 02:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yea the old one is more of an eye level shot and also more frontal than this one. I didn't say the sky is fake but just that it is not a very good background to it, too distracting and tiring to the eye. Also the new one still looks a bit tilted upward to me. -- antilived T 08:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Support I agree with you Diliff. Although the older FP has more detail and sort of looks better in thumb view (IMHO), this one has far more better composition, and the position of the camera is better plus there is no distracting boat on the river. And of course, it's made by Diliff. --Arad 08:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Support I posted the current FP for direct comparison. ~ trialsanderrors 09:02, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. I prefer colors, sharpness/resolution, homegeneous lighting, and neutral/soothing background of the existing FP a lot compared to the new one. --Dschwen 10:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I prefer the much higher resolution of the other one, but looking at it closer today I noticed an unusual area of blurriness - perhaps a restitch? Have a look at this crop: Image:Tower Bridge London Feb 2006 crop.jpg. Also by replacing the previous FP from it's position on the Tower of London article and putting it into the gallery section, the old FP is really contributing significantly to any article --Fir0002 11:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that was noted during the original nom and is an out of focus constituent-image. --Dschwen 11:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Exactly. I took 53 images. It was inevitable that there was a frame that was blurry. I'm not sure if it was a focus issue or just that I bumped the camera slightly. It was taken at almost 200mm and 3 seconds per exposure. It doesn't take much with those properties to induce motion blur. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 12:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh OK fair enough --Fir0002 05:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it is a reasonable expectation in order for one image to replace another as FP, it has to also replace its significance to the article. If this nomination fails, I will move the original image back again. Even if someone were to anal-retentively nominate the original image for delisting due to new-found lack of contribution to the article, I would imagine they would also take into account this nomination and its progress. Seems like a bit of a non-issue at this point in the process. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 19:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - Some of us have certainly thought about that but no one dared to suggest: what about putting the sky of the 1st picture into the second one?... Alvesgaspar 14:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yikes! You do realize the two pictures are shot in opposite directions? So if you are hell-bent on swapping the sky you might as well take any random sky, and f*** up the enc just as much. Apart from technical considerations (the first pic having a much lower res than the second) there would also be a weird color mismatch. --Dschwen 15:30, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I am still convinced that the English Wikipedia is the right place to find some sense of humour and politness. One exception is not enough to make me think the other way. Alvesgaspar 16:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm glad to hear that. Sorry that I didn't get your joke, as I don't find the topic particularly funny. After all we've been down that road before... --Dschwen 17:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * By the way... can I borrow that quote from you? ;-) --Dschwen 08:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Support - This image would clearly pass if nominated on its own. I won't stand in the way of Diliff swapping the old one out if that's what he thinks is best. Also, its pretty rare and sweet to see an image in which there is actual detail at the 1-pixel scale! Debivort 16:54, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Support I completely agree with this statement, and prefer the newer to the older as well. Preceding comment added by Jellocube27 04:32 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I find the dome on the left side of the bridge distracting. - Mgm|(talk) 17:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * What dome is that? All I can see is the floodlit roof on the left hand approach arch - Adrian Pingstone 09:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I assume he is being rather anal and referring to the City Hall building which I don't find particularly distracting.. If he finds that distracting, perhaps he'd prefer a version with the background artificially removed? ;-) Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 10:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, I see the "dome" now. Perhaps London could be rearranged to remove it! - Adrian Pingstone 17:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Plopp Sound of my head exploding ;-) --Dschwen 11:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * That part of the photo in the part i really love the most. I find the lights of the city hall building (as Diliff says) blending with the other aspects of the photo. Ahhh the Queen? now that's distracting. lol. --Arad 23:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Great shot! Sharkface217 20:44, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Depends :-) - I'd support the addition of this as a new FP independent of the first, so long as they're both in the Tower Bridge article with captions reflecting a) the enormous resolution of the original FP and b) the fact that they're different views and some comment on the major landmarks in the background. I'd oppose the delisting of the old and/or replacement by this image, as I actually prefer the sky in the original and I'd hate to see such a stunningly detailed image, which I regard as one of the best featured pictures, removed from the list. --YFB ¿  03:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Per YFB; I wouldn't recommend a delisting, as I prefer the current FP's sky and resolution to the nominee. -- Tewy  03:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Come on, we have to choose, it is ridiculous to have both as FP! And between the gorgeous sky of the first and the amazing resolution of the second, I choose the actual FP(pity that Dilif didn't accept my suggestion ;-) ). Alvesgaspar 00:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I respectfully disagree - why should two FPs of the same subject, under different lighting conditions and showing completely different views, be any more ridiculous than having three Space Shuttle FPs, two koala FPs, two house sparrow FPs, two crepuscular rays FPs, two aerial-view-of-cyclone FPs... ? --YFB ¿  02:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Uhm, we already have even more similar FPs... --Dschwen 10:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree with YFB and Dschwen for lawyerly reasons. We often resort to strict interpretations of the FPC criteria when arguing about controversial images - for consistency's sake, we should follow them here, and they say nothing about subject redundancy. That said, I don't mind defering to the creator's preference. Debivort 19:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment Is this an HDR image? The blurred people indicate multiple exposures, and the lighting indicates tone mapping. If it is it should say so plainly on the image page. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 19:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but you're making blatently incorrect assumptions there.. Blurred people indicates long exposure and moving people. The lighting doesn't indicate tone mapping to me. There are no haloes, there are no overly wide dynamic ranges across the image. I delibrately picked twilight because the brightness lighting of the bridge was roughly comparable to the ambient lighting, resulting in an aesthetically pleasing image without resorting to HDR compression. You're right, if it is HDR, it should state it. But you are jumping to conclusions to assume it likely is. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 12:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The queen declares: begone ugly helmet!. --Dschwen 16:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Queenie!. Ausgezeichnet! Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 18:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]] Support third edit, cue the Blackadder II quotes. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 10:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose Too similar to currently Featured Pic. Wikipediarul e s 2221 02:43, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak-ish support. Current FP presents the subject in more detail, but this is nevertheless a striking image. Noclip 16:33, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose I like the other one much better. | A ndonic O Talk 12:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Raven4x4x 01:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)