Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Theodor-Heuss-Brücke, 1902231957, ako.jpg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

File:Theodor-Heuss-Brücke, 1902231957, ako.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Mar 2019 at 07:12:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Illuminated bridge "Theodor-Heuss-Brücke" over the river rhine during late blue hour.
  • Sorry I didn't mean that it wasn't a artistic image, it is. But you did imply it was 'real' by saying blue hour. I never try to hide that I've used flash in wildlife photography. Charles (talk) 13:27, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Charles, this is real blue hour photo. If you make a long exposure shot at blue hour, it will make the sky/scene look like midday. To bring it back to what it actually looks like, you use a ND filter. That filter sort of "cancels out" the "brightening" of the image the long-exposure does. I just guess you haven't made enough of such photos to know this technique. --Cart (talk) 13:56, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, using an ND filter is not really complicated. Set your filter, set long-exposure : done. Kind of f/32 ISO 50. But it doesn't mean the saturation has not been pushed too far later in Lightroom. Like this blue snow that was "accurate white balance" in Code's eyes -- Basile Morin (talk) 15:28, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Saturation is another discussion, and if you don't agree with it you should 'oppose' on those grounds. Charles was questioning if this was indeed blue hour or just the filter. Re snow photo: Snow can often appear to look blue to the naked eye in the evening/night since it reflects the blue sky and the blue of shadows enhance it, so not that far-fetched but can also be exaggerated in post. --Cart (talk) 15:47, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blue hour sky is not like that in reality (neither blue snow), otherwise it would look familiar and not so strange. This picture is obviously manipulated and slightly oversaturated, see Blue hour on Wikipedia for more accurate examples of how this blue looks like. That one is a kind of concept of "blue hour" working in imagination or in memory, but not a natural blue, faithful in real life. Such kind of electric color you meet it either at noon only, or on your screen after increasing the levels a bit far in post-process. But of course it makes your concept very striking like something incredible where there is only a bridge with yellow lights and some stones in the foreground. I'm not saying this would be a bad picture with natural intensity, but we need to see the truth to judge honestly. For now it looks quite uninteresting to me because this is rather an ordinary scenery where the colors have been multiplied x times. A similar composition with long exposure that was much more successful is this bridge of San Francisco also with stones in the foreground, but natural colors. Day shot, though really exceptional angle and view, that make the difference. Cart says "you should oppose" and perhaps I will do so, but for now it's not necessary because this nomination has already been withdrawn -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:38, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Post-withdrawal votes
@Code: may I ask you to strike your "withdrawn"? it will be much simplier for us, rather than we make another nomination. Christian Ferrer (talk) 14:17, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A new nom is not necessary, you can simply strike the withdraw and write that you take over the nom. That is the way it has been done several times before. --Cart (talk) 14:51, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Question - But before we consider doing that: Code, would you be OK with someone else taking over the nomination, or do you as photographer prefer for the photo not to be considered anymore for FP? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:57, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 03:56, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Code, Is your camera clock correct? According to The Photographer's Ephemeris 19:57 is after astronomical twilight, and well after "blue hour" so the sky would be very dark, almost black, with the sun nearly 20° below the horizon. It seems more likely to be 18:57 with the sun 10° below, which is around the very end of "blue hour". Even with the 18:57 time, I'd expect this to be on the dark side, rather than bright side of blue (see Commons:Photography terms#Time of day). Perhaps a -1 exposure adjustment would keep it looking more natural for everyone? Of course, a long exposure generates other "artistic" effects, particularly in the water and with the plane, and your camera aperture generates the stars on the lights, so perhaps you are not aiming for 100% natural? -- Colin (talk) 11:58, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Yann (talk) 17:36, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral A beautiful scene but significant parts of the facades in the background are blown out. Lights are fine and expected, but actual masonry less so. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:00, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Well, now let's close this candidature after 48 hours it has been withdrawn, because nobody will never oppose it in state, by respect for the nominator (that would be nonsense after this white flag). Re-nomination will always be possible -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:08, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Basile Morin (talk) 13:08, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Theodor-Heuss-Brücke,_1902231957,_ako.jpg&oldid=342350593"