Sorry, but that bridge is white. If it was "severely overexposed", you could not see details in the concrete. Check with showfoto, for instance, only small details of the bridge and part of the clouds appear overexposed when you turn on the overexposure indicator. Rama (talk) 13:28, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, I still think it's a bit too unsharp, but I'm changing my vote to neutral as I don't think that in itself is a reason to oppose in this case. --Aqwis (talk) 14:12, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The bridge is not overexposed. It is white is reality. Check it. I welcome criticism, but this is factually wrong, and there is no excuse in repeating a mistake that has been discussed two lines above. Rama (talk) 15:00, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there is a local maximum at the right extreme of the histogram (value=255), corresponding to part of the bridge and clouds (yes, I did verify), and reflected in a severe lack of detail. If this is not overexposure... -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:28, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
overexposure in the image, as underlined by showfoto
There are only small points that are overexposed on the bridge, and an area in the clouds (see the image on the right). You did not complain about the clouds, though, because white coulds is not shocking, while a white bridge is. The problem is that, like Aqwis and myself, you intuitively expect concrete to by a darkish gray, not white. I understand the first impression, but the second, less so. Rama (talk) 21:39, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The term "overexposure" means "too much light", not necessarilyy "burned out" (255). And we know some picture has too much light when detail is affected. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:50, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Err no, sorry to disapoint you, but the angle is not unique. There is actually a plateforme at that spot. User:Ikiwaner has a similar image. I would have tried to get a truely unique angle, but it was just too dangerous (there's a cliff at this point). Rama (talk) 21:23, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't think it's a bad picture at all, and I agree that bridge isn't overexposed (I compared with other shots found on the internet). But this picture misses a little something to me (I wouldn't have nominated it if I had taken it myself). Some minor issues : It has surprisingly lot of noise in the sky, I expect Zero noise from a 5D at low ISO, but maybe I'm wrong. Also CA is very noticeable (and easily fixeable with Canon's DPP if you shot in RAW and use a Canon lense ?). Benh (talk) 05:28, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am also disapointed wth the noise. The image is a direct jpg from the camera, maybe I would have had better to develop it from a raw by hand. I hope it is that, because else I can't think where the problem comes from. Rama (talk) 09:16, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now you mention it, I must have passed it through showfoto and possibly adjusted levels. Sorry, I had genuinely completely forgotten when you first asked. Rama (talk) 08:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The issues above does make the overall impression not good enough. Already mentioned but I was mainly thinking of the CA, unsharpness and overexposure. /Daniel78 (talk) 09:56, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Info created by Rama (talk) - uploaded by Rama (talk) - nominated by Rama (talk) -- Rama (talk) 11:12, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Oppose
Neutral, I still think it's a bit too unsharp, but I'm changing my vote to neutral as I don't think that in itself is a reason to oppose in this case. --Aqwis (talk) 14:12, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Support The lack of sharpness is slightly concerning, but I really enjoy the vantage point, and the subject as is depicted against the blue sky. Great shot. I support. - Anonymous DissidentTalk 15:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Question Is this an edited or unedited JPEG from camera? --Base64 (talk) 09:50, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
