Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Hayden Bridge

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Oct 2021 at 18:20:02 (UTC)

Original – Hayden Bridge in 1990, from the Southwest perspective.

Reason: The photograph significantly improves the article on its corresponding subject. It is of a high technical standard and resolution, with the main subject clear and in good focus. It illustrates the bridge in a compelling way, is free, has good lighting, a good file description, and helps Wikipedians to understand the subject better. It is a photograph from before the bridge's renovation, as part of historic documentation, and comes from an authoritative source, adding to its encyclopedic value. It meets all FP criteria and is among the best examples of Hayden Bridge, and of wrought iron, phoenix column bridges that the encyclopedia has to offer.
Articles in which this image appears: Hayden Bridge (Springfield, Oregon)
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Engineering and technology/Others
Creator: Jeff G. and the Historic American Engineering Record

Support as nominator – Tyrone Madera (talk) 18:20, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support as uploader — Jeff G. ツ 05:06, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Why B&W for a pic. taken in 1990? – Sca (talk) 11:59, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Sca, This is the standard format for photographs by the Historic American Engineering Record. See the HAER Guidelines. Tyrone Madera (talk) 16:56, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – It needs a bit of restoration in the sky area, the label on top right corner as well. I think the original Here is in B&W because it was shot on large format (5x7 inch) film [1] which gives much higher resolution for (government) documentation purposes, as opposed to 35mm color film (the digital scan isn't high resolution though). Bammesk (talk) 16:36, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff G., I did a restoration of the original TIF (removed scratches/dust), cloned out the label on top right corner, and uploaded the file on top of your version. I didn't change the contrast of the original TIF. I agree with TSP's comments below, I think the contrast revision was excessive. But if you want to change the contrast slightly, feel free. Support. Bammesk (talk) 02:58, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm not sure about the amount of contrast that's been added in the edit. Looking at the diagonal pillar coming down from the front of the bridge, on the original the pillar has a smooth gradient, clearly showing the round cross-section. On the proposed edit, the upper side of the pillar looks (at least on both my monitors) almost blown out, obscuring the shape of the pillar. The edit has also darkened the underside of the bridge, hiding some detail there, and made the sky harsher and the dust specks more obvious. There are certainly also areas where it has brought out detail, especially in thumbnail, but I'm not sure it's universally an improvement - I think a slightly gentler touch might bring better results? TSP (talk) 17:15, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- TSP & Bammesk, I've added two identical versions with lower contrast based on File:Hayden Bridge (cropped).jpg, but my attempts to do things properly have only mangled the file descriptions more from their original states. They are File:Hayden Bridge lower contrast.jpeg and File:Hayden Bridge lower contrast.jpg. The pages are messy and I don't know how best to fix them. Hopefully, these are more the contrast you're looking for and at least function as a proof of concept for reducing the contrast. Best, Tyrone Madera (talk) 17:59, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tyrone Madera, I see no difference between the nominated image and the two files you created yesterday: [2], [3]. I suggest you request the deletion of the two files at Commons:Help desk. You are the uploader, so your request would be noncontraversial. It would be routine deletion. Bammesk (talk) 17:25, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Bammesk. I believe I am either experiencing extreme technical difficulties now or did at the time I made those uploads. I've requested their deletion, but I remember the contrast being higher when I made the adjustments. Oh well, I suppose now it's a mystery. Thanks for correcting the image! Best, Tyrone Madera (talk) 19:40, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Good shot. --Petar Milošević (talk) 12:26, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. I'm sorry -- I'm not really clear on why this is not in colour. I had a look at the guidelines linked above, but, unless I missed it (and I may have done) there wasn't really an explanation of why black and whie is preferable... (Weak solely because I may be missing something obvious.) Josh Milburn (talk) 18:36, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think they made (or make) large format (5x7 inch) color film. If they do or did, it's rare and not common. Pinging @Janke: he may know more about this. In 1990 (pre digital photography) the government's objective was to document "significant" structures [4], [5], [6]. Capturing the details of this structure is why large format B&W film was used (large film ~ high resolution ~ more detail). Color information wasn't important. That's why it's B&W, but that doesn't justify supporting the nom (the digital scan isn't high resolution anyway). I am supporting the nom because the bridge has two innovative design features, "milestones" per Library of Congress [7] (for its time, 1882) and the photo shows the two features in sufficient detail (Whipple truss and Phoenix column), noted in article's text as well. The image enhances the article. It shows the bridge in its original state, before it was converted to a pedestrian trail with additional fences [8]. The color information would have been nice, but it's not detrimental to what it shows. Bammesk (talk) 03:30, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]