Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:SNCF TGV Duplex Viaduc de Cize - Bolozon.jpg

File:SNCF TGV Duplex Viaduc de Cize - Bolozon.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 May 2011 at 12:51:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:SNCF TGV Duplex Viaduc de Cize - Bolozon.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:SNCF TGV Duplex Viaduc de Cize - Bolozon.jpg

•  Info all by Kabelleger -- Kabelleger (talk) 12:51, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
•  Info A TGV Duplex trainset crossing the Ain river near Cize. This viaduct is part of the Haut-Bugey line, which was reopened in December 2010 for TGV services between Geneva and Paris.
•  Abstain as author -- Kabelleger (talk) 12:51, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
•  Support Twin duplex. --Mile (talk) 19:51, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
•  Support I feel something like a "wow", as some says... Very good !!--Jebulon (talk) 23:11, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
•  Support Great composition and colors. -- King of Hearts (talk) 23:34, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose Lacking sharpness and the electric pole to the far left along with the third house from the far left, nearest to the bridge has some chromatic aberration.--Snaevar (talk) 23:50, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I just uploaded a new version with less CA (colors/crop/brightness may also differ slightly). Regarding sharpness: This is the 1:1 resolution from the camera plus parts of the picture are stretched because of the perspective correction. I don't think you'll ever get a perfectly sharp result under these circumstances (or at least not with gear that I can afford...). Of course I could have scaled it down to make it look better at 1:1, but that would have been a bit pointless. --Kabelleger (talk) 11:53, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
•  Support per Jebulon! --Jovian Eye _talk 00:21, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
•  Support As always: a good train picture combined with a stunning landscape... -- MJJR (talk) 08:28, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
•  Support great! --AngMoKio (座谈) 08:58, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
•  Support -- Marvelous. Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:17, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
•  Support Super cool! Wow, and great balance of color!-- Jeromy-Yu Maximilian Chan (talk) 13:14, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
•  Support Good work again! --ELEKHH^T 13:42, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
•  Support --Brackenheim (talk) 13:53, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
•  Support --Cayambe (talk) 15:28, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
•  Neutral -- Lovely but hazy in the bg. -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 16:02, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
•  Support I see no lack or sharpness or chromatic aberration. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 16:31, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
•  Support Yarl ✉ 20:53, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
•  Support No CA in the new version. Sharpness just OK, but lots of WOW. W.S. 11:50, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
•  Support --Böhringer (talk) 15:04, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
•  Support - Benh (talk) 16:37, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
•  Support --Avenue (talk) 17:48, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
•  Support Very nice picture! The very right moment. Blattkaktus (talk) 22:48, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
•  Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 06:28, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose I don't want to be grinch but I guess that the community miss to look exactly at the technical side of this picture. Sure: this is great picture with a very nice view over the bridge and the train and I would it support strongly if the noise is not so conspicuously. But with this noise and the muddy impression I am not sure it this picture can even get a QI. Because this picture was shoot with ISO 200 I guess the lens has not much luminous intensity or is otherwise simply bad. --Wladyslaw (talk) 08:49, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

• Imho, if we criticise the technical quality here (which is in my opinion for a landscape wide-angle shot quite good), it will encourage people to reduce their 12mpx images to 3mpx images before uploading them. --AngMoKio (座谈) 10:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
  • There is no need to reduce a 12 MP picture to 3 MP when the parameters are chosen well. We have other examples of great landscape images and with those one this picture has to compare. --Wladyslaw (talk) 11:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Can you show me such a landscape photo? I think that we all (me included) are pretty much spoiled by the often stunning stitched panorama pictures, which mostly consist of several resolution-reduced pictures. I rarely saw a non-stitched wide-angle landscape shot with a stunning sharpness. Do you think that the whole photo here is quality-wise questionable or just parts of it? --AngMoKio (座谈) 11:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
      • e.g. this one File:HŽ 2044 between Turcin and Sveti Ilija.jpg is much better in technical view, I have chosen also an image of a train, a non-stitched panorama and even the same photographer. The whole image of this candidate has for me a muddy impresion, not only some parts at the edge. In my view this light/landscape-situation has to be take with a much lower exposure time than 1/640s so that it become a bit underexposed to be brighten later by digital image editing. So there would be a chance to conservate a bit more of the structure of the bridge and the train itself. --Wladyslaw (talk) 11:58, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
        • File:HŽ 2044 between Turcin and Sveti Ilija.jpg has been scaled down (I don't remember to what extent; I can upload a 1:1 version if you want). No surprise it is much sharper. @structure of the bridge: The bridge is not overexposed (I think), so there are no details lost - I don't understand what would be gained by a lower exposure and making it brighter afterwards. But I'm not sure, maybe this image is generally a bit too bright? --Kabelleger (talk) 13:09, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
• ISO 100 won't cut it here. Something like 1/640 s exposure is necessary to keep the moving (!) train sharp, and I don't want to go below F6.3 or so because the image quality gets worse at larger apertures. --Kabelleger (talk) 11:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

•  Request Kabelleger, can you upload the full resolution of File:HŽ 2044 between Turcin and Sveti Ilija.jpg as new file temporarily. I have always been intrigued by the sharpness and would like to know what lens you have used. Jovian Eye _talk 15:12, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

• Will do (in a few hours when I'm back at home). When I uploaded that picture, I was lazy and took the scaled down version from my web site, since I never intended to nominate it for FP... Lens was the very same 17-55 F2.8 IS (no that's not the kit ;) ) and 50D as this picture was taken with. --Kabelleger (talk) 17:59, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
• Here you go: File:HŽ 2044 between Turcin and Sveti Ilija hires.jpg Note that I think the smaller version is not only scaled down, but also sharpened a bit. --Kabelleger (talk) 22:30, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

•  Support I'll jump in the discussion with the following comments:
  • This picture has everything to be a FP, and it seems quite obvious given the tremendous support it already has.
    • (per my neutral above I disagree -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 05:59, 28 April 2011 (UTC))
  • Looking at the EXIF data, the picture was taken at 17mm, which is already quite wide-angled. I don't know with which lens it was taken, but if it was not something like Canon's 10-22mm, the lens used here is probably at its shortest focal length and will thus exhibit technical imperfections, specially at the corners. The lens was correctly stopped down to f/6.3 to a) increase DoF and b) improve quality at the corners. These are limitations of the equipment itself, and the picture should not be penalized for this. Otherwise, ALL wide-angle photography taken with a FF (which is even more problematic at the corners) would never be able to make FP, which would be ridiculous.
  • Color saturation and contrast look very natural to me.
  • Looking at the histogram, I don't see any overexposure to be concerned about. In fact, there are only 5 pixels at the 255 level. --Murdockcrc (talk) 19:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Equipment: Canon 50D + EF-S 17-55 2.8 IS (no, this is not the kit lens) --Kabelleger (talk) 22:38, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
•  Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 19:24, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
•  Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:13, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
•  Support Georgez (talk) 19:07, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
•  Support Steven Walling 05:01, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
•  Support -- A nice contrast between the old viaduct and the modern train. MartinD 16:33, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
•  Support--Kiran Gopi (talk) 07:37, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 26 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:03, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture