Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/View from the Portage Viaduct

View from the Portage Viaduct

 * Reason:Excellent image; large resolution; high level of detail; adds great quality to Letchworth State Park; Free License; Limited manipulation; is among Wikipedia's best work (if I do say so myself)
 * Articles this image appears in:Letchworth State Park
 * Creator:Lumbergh (talk) 07:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Support as nominator Lumbergh (talk) 07:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose snapshot. The freddinator (talk) 10:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose Poor lighting, blown highlights, chromatic aberration, extremely grainy, NOT Wikipedia's best work. TheOtherSiguy (talk) 13:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose Snap shot at best. Capital photographer (talk) 15:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose per all above.  crassic ![ talk ] 03:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Very grainy image.  Spinach Dip  08:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose per TheOtherSiguy. Spencer  T♦C 22:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Inquiry -- I could fix many of the issues noted by TheOtherSiguy (lighting, chromatic aberration, noise) to a significant (though not perfect) degree. Would doing so change anyone's opinion?  I would be willing to submit a corrected photo if that's the case.  If not, I will concede defeat on this one. Lumbergh (talk) 02:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but if you could reshoot it then you should submit that but the problems with this image are not fixable by PP to a degree that would pass FP. The original simply does not contain enough detail. The lighting is a photographic decision which means shooting the subject at the right time of day. You will not be able to correct that in PS. It's the reason why a lot of photographers would be better off spending their next $50 on a better alarm clock rather than another PS plugin :) Mfield (talk) 04:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The time of the photograph has less to do with alarm clocks than it did the time it took us to get there. And one of the things that really hurt was that he simply did not have a dSLR at the time (which is responsible for a great deal of the noise that has already been noted).  I personally like the lighting in this picture, though it's clear that I'm a minority in this opinion. Lumbergh (talk) 06:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose - one of those views, I fear, that probably looked wonderful at the time, but the camera was unable do justice to. I think the photographer tried hard to frame it by excluding the sky, but it ends up as a large gash between uniform shrubbery (giving connotations that were probably not intended). Would there be more variety in the tree colours in Spring or Autumn. Motmit (talk) 20:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * There is actually a second picture (that the photographer himself prefers) that does not include the sky. I personally prefer the perspective offered by including a bit of the sky in the picture.  Unfortunately, I live in Florida and he lives in Alabama, so a trip back up to New York to reshoot with his new equipment at a different time of day is not feasible. Lumbergh (talk) 06:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

MER-C 11:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)