Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Clevedon Pier 2013.jpg

File:Clevedon Pier 2013.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Oct 2013 at 17:20:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Clevedon Pier 2013.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Clevedon Pier 2013.jpg

•  Info created and uploaded by Saffron Blaze - nominated by Paris 16 -- Paris 16 (talk) 17:20, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
•  Support -- Paris 16 (talk) 17:20, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
•  Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:12, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
•  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:40, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
•  Support Nice light and careful composition - the lamps from the pier exactly match the top of the mountain line in the background. --Tuxyso (talk) 06:08, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
•  Support --Joydeep _Talk 06:25, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
•  Support -- -donald- (talk) 07:27, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
•  Support --Böhringer (talk) 09:50, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
•  Support Beautiful. -- Colin (talk) 10:45, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
•  Support very nice and beautiful sunset -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:41, 18 October 2013 (UTC) but I change to  Neutral -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:18, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
•  Support I would have liked a more panoramic crop. Still great! Barcex (talk) 11:44, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
•  Neutral Wonderful photo, but heavily (and unnecessarily) oversharpened. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 11:55, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
  •  Oppose for now. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 15:06, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
    •  Support much better now. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 21:04, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
•  Support JKadavoor Jee 11:56, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
•  Support --JLPC (talk) 14:00, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
•  Support --M49314 (talk) 14:10, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
•  Support but  Oppose per Julian, halos around pier should be fixed. --Laitche (talk) 16:32, 18 October 2013 (UTC) --Laitche (talk) 06:29, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
•  Neutral Very nice, but oversharpened. --Ivar (talk) 17:24, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
•  Oppose --Per Ivar and others: "glowing" cables destroy the whole beauty of the picture. Sting (talk) 23:23, 18 October 2013 (UTC) Still visible halos but much better now. Sting (talk) 13:33, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

• Not convinced the glowing cables have anything to do with sharpening. Saffron Blaze (talk) 03:17, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure these are sharpening halos and look to me about the level advised (in books like The Digital Negative) for printing but a little too much for screen. However, that advice is for the final copy at a resolution to be viewed. Do they disappear when the image is reduced down to standard display size or even pro 27" or retina displays? Unfortunately, no. I agree such a calming picture doesn't warrant razor sharpness. So I would recommend reducing the sharpening if you processed the raw. If this is an out-of-camera JPG then we're stuck I guess. That said, I'd deeply envious of this image and wouldn't consider opposing over such a technicality. Not only is the sun perfectly aligned, but, as Tuxyso notes, the lamps along the pier align with the hills. The long 4s exposure has nicely smoothed the sea without losing all detail (per the current fad for unreal milky-soft sea/sky). -- Colin (talk) 10:04, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I have the raw so I will give it a look, but if these were sharpening halos why aren't all the sets of cables affected? It seems to be happening to just the brightly backlit ones so I just assumed an effect caused by the sun's glow on the cables and the long exposure. Saffron Blaze (talk) 14:58, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

All cables have halos. The extremely strong halos are only on the thick ones, because the thin ones aren't fully black (don't have such a high contrast im comparison to the background). It's not possible that the sun, in this position, could generate any glow around a steel cable, let alone on both sides. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 15:06, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

•  Oppose Nice, but per Julian and Laitche. --Kadellar (talk) 12:08, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

•  Comment Thanks for reworking! --Kadellar (talk) 10:00, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

•  Support Regardless of what created the cables, I don't really see a problem. Daniel Case (talk) 14:08, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
• Uploaded a re-do from RAW. No sharpening at all. Saffron Blaze (talk) 19:46, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
•  Support now. --Ivar (talk) 19:50, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
•  Support new version. Nice composition and mood, Thanks for your work. --Laitche (talk) 20:05, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

•  Comment New version again? I'm not going to change my vote but I voted to the second version and I prefer the second, no need to level adjustment imo :) --Laitche (talk) 20:19, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

• I notice on upload the first edit was considerably darker than the original so I adjusted the second edit to be more like the original. You are right though they are both fine. Not sure which I prefer. Saffron Blaze (talk) 21:47, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

• I am caught up in some kind a caching hell. I can't tell if the right file is current. I went with no sharpening and brightness matched to original. Saffron Blaze (talk) 23:13, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

• I find I need to use Ctrl-F5 on firefox to force a reload of the image when a new one is uploaded. I'm guessing that as the filename is the same, and the date-time of the photograph remains the same, the browser doesn't know to download a new version. Don't know about other browsers. Colin (talk) 07:29, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

•  Support Michael Barera (talk) 03:26, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
•  Support Very nice work -- MJJR (talk) 21:02, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /JKadavoor Jee 15:53, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

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