Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Tower Bridge and Thames sunset

Tower Bridge, City of London and Thames at sunset

 * Reason:This is an uncommon view of Tower Bridge (as many tourists/photographers don't walk this far down the river beyond the city), showing most of the span of the bridge, and also the skyscrapers towering above the office blocks of the City of London. It was taken shortly after sunset, allowing for a beautiful red glow in the sky. It is aesthetically pleasing, but still quite enc as it shows the detail of the river, bridge, construction of the city, the skyline and St Paul's cathedral in the background, etc.
 * Articles this image appears in:London, Tower Bridge and River Thames (controversial, but I think it is settled now - see its talk page for more info)
 * Creator:User:Diliff

(UTC)
 * Support as nominator Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 17:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Support I think the image description says all that needs to be said. Dr. Extreme (talk) 17:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Support per DrExtreme. Purple Is Pretty (talk) 00:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Support I was hoping for slightly higher rez, but it's great as is.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 00:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Good job Diliff. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 00:41, 5 March 2008
 * Support Wow. It almost looks fake... -  Milk's   Favorite   Cookie  03:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Sorry not to join the bandwagon but I prefer the actual Tower Bridge FP on enc grounds. This one is artsy and beautiful but much less detailed. Also, the denoising process was a little too radical in my opinion -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * There actually was no de-noising processing on this image at all. It was downsampled significantly from 13126x4876 so even if there were any noise reduction, this would largely mask it anyway, but I can confirm there is none. Can you be more specific about your complaint? If you're referring to the river, it was a relatively long exposure so movement would soften the texture. And if you're referring to the buildings in the background, any lack of texture can be explained by atmospheric haze. Also, this image is not intended to compete with the existing FP (unlike the Big Ben photo). It isn't even supposed to show the Tower Bridge in detail. The point is to show the Tower Bridge, the Thames, the wharves and the city skyline as a single composition. I'm not intended to try to convince you to change your opinion, but I wanted to set the record straight. :-) Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 11:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, the softness is explained. I would probably support this picture at COM:FPC, as I am quite sensitive to artsy works. But I also think that the enc interest is somehow affected by the lack of detail and unnatural colours. Why not re-shoot this during the day? - Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:18, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It just doesn't look nearly as aesthetic during the day. I still maintain there is more than enough detail visible though - the softness is extremely minor. A daytime shot of this same scene would not really give you any detail that this one does not. In fact, I suspect that many features would be less distinct during the day due to the lack of lighting, but as I don't have an equivalent daytime shot, I can't say for certain. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 17:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Support You're actually allowed to upload up to a 20 meg file - how about a little more resolution? =) Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 11:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I keep them for my commercial photography. Withholding ultra high resolution images is probably the one thing I can do to prevent pilfering of my best photos without my consent, unfortunately. And it does happen. Regularly. :-( Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 12:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Alvesgaspar and also the image is too small.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't mean to be following you around Mbz1, but as I mentioned in reply to Alves, his arguments were a bit weak since they mainly related to the incorrect assumption that it was primarily illustrating the Tower Bridge. So in a sense, I feel that you are agreeing with point that is unfounded and therefore a bit null and void... And as for size, it is more than large enough as per the guidelines. Plenty of smaller images with less visible detail are featured. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 16:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Fantastic Image which enhances the articles it is in. It's a shame that the photo hasn't been uploaded at the maximum resolution possible, however I can sympathize with the author over their decision not to upload a higher resolution copy.  --Dave (talk) 20:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Support For the most part, it's a very nice image. Juliancolton  The storm still blows...  22:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Spikebrennan (talk) 15:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This image has been brought forcefully to my attention,and as it is being proposed as a Featured Picture this gives me an opportunity to explain exactly what I think is wrong with it.
 * As an editor I am looking for pictures that support the text of the articles I am working on. Given the limited space available, the pictures need to be information-rich without being crowded and if possible tell more than one story at once. If I was looking for an image to illustrate any article, I would definitely not choose this one. In terms of content it is primarily a mass of nondescript buildings with a mid-distance floodlit image of a well-known bridge. This is an interesting bridge because it is the only bascule bridge on the Thames, and it is designed to match the Tower of London alongside. Neither of these elements is illustrated in the image. St Paul's Cathedral behind it is simply a poorly-placed sillouetted dome, and the Gherkin lacks interest. Some isolated cranes on the skyline do not say much about building activity on an uninteresting selection of the skyline. As for the river itself it looks like a stagnant pond with nasty bits floating on it. There is no life in this picture. Would anyone consider proposing it if it the same scene was seen in clear day light?. I think that is very unlikely. That means that only story this image tells is that the sky goes a funny colour when the sun goes down.
 * The image is double width and in consequence has to be shown larger than conventional images in order to be a reasonable height.
 * Another editor has described it as a picture postcard view, but in terms of composition I don't not think it even qualifies as that. The vertical centre line is emphasised by the dip in the suspension cables which splits the image into two. If this is a deliberate ploy, it does not work - it simply makes the image look like two bad pictures stuck together with nothing pulling the whole together. The picture lacks depth - everything is fused into the middle distance with no significant foreground highlights to create perspective. There is a lack of compositional balance and no dynamic interplay between the elements to keep the eye interested. Finally there is the issue of the colour. I can quote another editor in referring to the "lurid red". For some the shock effect may have an immediate dramatic impact, but others find it unpleasant. I would challenge those who have responded positively on first impressions to see how long they can stand looking at the picture.  Several have commented that the colours look artificial which does not in fact count in the image's favour. It is a personal view, but it is not an image I want to be hit in the eye with every time a go in to revert a vandal or edit a page on which I have much editorial work to do. I do not believe it has a place on Wikipedia, let alone as a Featured Article. In the latter respect I have a serious concern that pictures like this encourage people to illustrate articles with uninformative sunsets because they think they look pretty, rather than pictures that, however crude, at least provide informational value. I  further believe that given the desparate need to obtain illustrations for articles that do not have them,  priority should be given to images that address uncharted territory rather than rehashing well covered areas.
 * I hope the contributor will welcome my input rather than assume an "attitude" beause I have objected to the the manner in which this image has been forced onto an article. Motmit (talk) 00:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I won't respond to your points individually (suffice to say that while I disagree with most of them in general, I do welcome your input), but I will say that I'm glad for Wikipedia's sake that not everyone agrees with your sentiments as I think the project does benefit from photos such as this one, or I wouldn't upload them and try to find a home for them in the first place. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 01:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I really like the atmospheric perspective, it reminds me of a certain painting of the Canale Grande. --Dschwen 03:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Support - it's named "Tower Bridge, City of London and Thames at sunset" so saying it's too artsy or that it should have been taken during a day is irrelevant.--Svetovid (talk) 23:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Honestly, it's one of the better pictures of Tower Bridge.  crassic\talk 18:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Support It is a beautiful picture of the Tower Bridge and the photograph gives a adequate view of the bridge and it surroundings (City of London, Tower of London, Thames, etc.) The fact that it was taken by sunset gives a beautiful side-effect. I support the opinion of Svetovid saying that earlier made comments don't really make sense. Massimo Catarinella (talk) 16:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

MER-C 08:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)