Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Pont de Brooklyn de nuit - Octobre 2008.jpg

Image:Pont de Brooklyn de nuit - Octobre 2008.jpg, Edit1 featured

Original, not featured

•  Info created, uploaded and nominated by User:S23678. Please keep in mind the picture is at the maximum resolution as per the guidelines. Consider the size (55.8 Mpx) before judging the quality at 100% zoom. Thank you. --S23678 (talk) 05:19, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
  •  Info I posted some downsampled images to ease with the evalution of my image. --S23678 (talk) 01:48, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
•  Support --S23678 (talk) 05:19, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
•  Support What can I say, this is amazing photography. Anonymous101 ^talk 08:07, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose Full size is no mitigation for lack of noise reduction or glaring lights. Sorry. Lycaon (talk) 11:03, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
•  Support I like it, needs an english description though. -- Gorgo (talk) 11:45, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
  •  Comment I will add one, but commons is multilingual, it doesn't need one ;) --S23678 (talk) 16:24, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
    • yes it is, but I think a picture that is amongst the finest on commons should have an english description. -- Gorgo (talk) 16:28, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
    • And without a second language the image would not have been multilingual :) /Daniel78 (talk) 23:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
•  Support -- I like (Giligone (talk) 14:38, 18 October 2008 (UTC))
•  Oppose Per Lycaon. I think it would benefit greatly from some down sampling. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 15:15, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
  •  Comment I'll refer you to the first point in the guidelines. Please also look here where there was a clear support to an imperfect-but-full-resolution-FPC, over a sharper-but-smaller-FPC. Thank you. (My comment applies to downsampling) --S23678 (talk) 16:15, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Down sampling is allowed if it doesn't delete information and the picture isn't down sampled to an extended degree. Or do you think, that every panorama shown here is at its maximum resolution? As for the example..I didn't vote for that one, but I'm voting for this one. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 16:52, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
•  Support --Karelj (talk) 22:59, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Wow! -- DarkAp89  Commons 10:39, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Awesome. --Aktron (talk) 11:25, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Though I must admit that it looks better in the preview than in full res. --MarPac (talk) 11:45, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose Very good composition. Strong noise visible at preview, very weak technical quality. Sharpened highlight edges with inappropriate radius. Chromatic Aberration visible. sorry. --Base64 (talk) 14:05, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
•  Support, but please downscale it to approximately 8000x* pixels. --Aqwis (talk) 20:31, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
  •  Done here (2 Mpx, 3.6 Mpx and 5000 px wide) --S23678 (talk) 01:48, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose Sorry - would have liked to support, but I would expect an effort to be made to reduce the noise and to deal with the very noticeable CA. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:57, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose great composition and a beautiful image at preview size but technical problems as highlighted by Base64, very sorry -- ianaré (talk) 01:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose A nice image, but it requires more post processing and maybe some downsizing to remove some technical flaws. -- Pixel8 11:12, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
•  Support A very nice (and a classic) image with nice colours and mood to me. A bit weak from technical point of view, but I guess camera is at fault mostly. Considering the large size, technical flaws are mitigated. What are the dots on the upper left part ? is it a result of blending three exposures ? Benh (talk) 19:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
•  Support--Avala (talk) 19:59, 27 October 2008 (UTC) too late - Benh (talk) 21:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

result: 10 supports, 6 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured (waiting for results on edit1). Benh (talk) 21:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Edit 1, featured

•  Info Lycaon has done a great job at noise reduction. As well he removed some artifacts from the sky (airplane trails of light, flare). --S23678 (talk) 14:40, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
•  Support --S23678 (talk) 14:40, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
•  Support -- Florent Pécassou (talk) 09:00, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
•  Support -- Good edit Snowwayout (talk) 03:19, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
•  Support --Crusier (talk) 07:35, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
•  Support --Aqwis (talk) 08:29, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
•  Support cool lights Muhammad 16:56, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Great pic. (also the one above) There is some extra ray of light above the building (that stands behind the middle of the bridge). Ufo? -:) One small light still remains on this image. Ziga (talk) 17:29, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
•  Support great work -- Gorgo (talk) 18:54, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
•  Support-- DarkAp89  Commons 14:52, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
•  Support--Avala (talk) 19:58, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
•  Support --Base64 (talk) 09:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
•  Support--Lmbuga ^{gl, pt, es: contacta comigo} 15:27, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
•  Support - Benh (talk) 21:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
•  Support /Daniel78 (talk) 23:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
•  Neutral Probably in the minority but I would have liked some more noise in there :) It looks too glossy now. --Dori - Talk 03:06, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose It appears that noise reduction was applied indescriminately and without proper masking masking, there is zero fine detail when scaled to the minimum height of a panorama. The bridge looks like it has a smooth concrete render instead of blocks. Noodle snacks (talk) 08:27, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

result: 14 supports, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Benh (talk) 10:32, 2 November 2008 (UTC)