Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Brooklyn Bridge Panorama

Brooklyn Bridge Panorama

Original - Night Panorama of Brooklyn Bridge and Financial sector of Manhattan. Three panoramas at different exposures have been assembled with Enfuse

Reason: An amazing picture of an incredibly monumental and architecturally signficant structure.
Articles this image appears in: Brooklyn Bridge
Creator: Commons:User:S23678. Edited by Commons:User:Lycaon.

Support as nominator --smooth0⁷0₇ (talk) 13:36, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and Oppose - am I going mad, or did this just not get nominated a few weeks ago? Mfield (talk) 17:31, 31 October 2008 (UTC) Either way, oppose it is smeary and artifacted at full resolution. The artifacts around the highlights are smoothed and resharpened jpeg compression probably maybe to it being a third party edit and the consequent editing and resaving of jpegs. I would support a better performed edit which probably means from the original. Mfield (talk) 17:36, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. It was uploaded to Commons on the 17th of Oct. A few weeks back, I nominated another photo, which failed to pass through. If you think you can do a better edit to the original, I would like to see it. If not, I encourage you go consider the EV of this structure before you complain about artefacting. It is a National Historic Landmark and was at one point, the largest suspension bridge in the world. smooth0⁷0₇ (talk) 19:47, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I could certainly perform a re-edit but I suspect it probably won't help much as the problem is that this has been edited from a jpeg and really the fixes need to be applied by the original photographer to avoid the extra saves. I'll have a go at it anyway. Mfield (talk) 20:15, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I don't see any problem with the slight smearing and artifacting given the resolution. If it was scaled down to 2000px high it would virtually disappear, and the photo would still have a huge resolution; but there's obviously no point doing this. I do agree that the halos around the lights aren't perfect, but they don't detract enough for an oppose. Time3000 (talk) 15:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Downsize this to 1000px high and imo it still looks blurred over with too much NR. Noodle snacks (talk) 00:03, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - The glare from the lights at full resolution makes my eyes water. Also, there are some ghosting problems with the flag. The flag can probably be fixed by a re-stitch, but reducing the glare would probably require more exposures and better optics. Wronkiew (talk) 02:08, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the flag is the result of a long exposure and some wind not a stitching error. Noodle snacks (talk) 03:10, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  I am not sure that the flag problems are the result of stitching, but it does look like ghosting to me. It would be very helpful to see the original photos so I could determine if these are stitching/fusing artifacts, or if all the odd looking stuff is just the result of a long exposure, some haze, and inconstant wind. Wronkiew (talk) 04:58, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support As the creator. The image is a stitch and enfuse of 50 images in 3 different expositions, done in JPEG that took all the juice out of my 2 batteries. Given the extra time for saving RAW files on my old DSC-V1 camera, I would not have been able to complete the panorama with my batteries. As for the flag, no long exposition picture will ever get a moving flag right. As for view at full resolution, I'll remind you of the size of the image, at more than 50 Mpx. If you want to downsample the image, you can do so by using the wide image template (like here, with the non-NR version), no need to get rid of the extra information from the file itself. As for the glare from the lights, I think it's acceptable given the wide dynamic range of this scene, but this is a personal choice. I consider that the beauty of the image can compensate for some little technical flaws. --S23678 (talk) 03:49, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 03:02, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]