Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Old international bridge Tuy-Valenca.jpg

Image:Old international bridge Tuy-Valenca.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Aug 2016 at 11:30:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/Image:Old international bridge Tuy-Valenca.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Old international bridge Tuy-Valenca.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Bridges
•  Info created by Harpagornis - uploaded by Harpagornis - nominated by Harpagornis -- Harpagornis (talk) 11:30, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
•  Support - I find that pretty intriguing and a very good form, and I think you did very well under these light conditions. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:11, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
•  Support visually striking, even though white balance might be off a bit. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:22, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Surprising how omnious an ordinary brigde can look in night lights. Psst: You are allowed to vote for your own picture here. I assume you would vote {{s}}... --w.carter-Talk 13:09, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose Not convinced for quality, sorry. Though the idea is striking, the frame is too soft considering the low resolution (diffraction at f/14 I suppose), and the large turquoise areas around the lamps (and on the ceiling beams) don’t help, adding to the WB being a bit on the cold side. I think, in colour this would have required HDR processing (would avoid the lamps being blown), but it might work well in b/w. --Kreuzschnabel 13:15, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
•  Support - --Harpagornis (talk) 17:11, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose Per Kreuzschnabel. INeverCry 19:37, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

•  Support Albertus teolog (talk) 06:26, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
•  Support --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 11:45, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Alt version

•  Info Version thanks to Kreuz recomendations, please, let me know what do you think. --The Photographer (talk) 16:26, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
•  Comment Hard to tell, they both have different appeal... w.carter-Talk 19:22, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose The color/lighting is just a deal-breaker on both of these for me. I'll have to download a copy and convert it to B&W to see how it looks. INeverCry 19:42, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
•  Comment - To me, this version has the best quality, but the color is radically different, and I wouldn't be able to support this if the color is incorrect. Harpagornis, was the color as shown in the version you submitted? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:31, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I was not making a color invention I only apply a WB correction, selective noise fix, and light fix --The Photographer (talk) 23:14, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

You call it a difference in white balance; I call it a difference between bluish green and yellow/green. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:25, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Agree, two totally different moods. I'm leaning towards the first/Matrix version, the second/Star Wars version looks too stark and cold. B&W looks like the Cold War and gives me the creaps, HDR just looks poisonous. w.carter-Talk 10:02, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I look my version like Indiana Jones film and Ikan Kekek version like resident evil --The Photographer (talk) 17:45, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

B&W

•  Comment Here in black and white --Harpagornis (talk) 20:39, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
•  Support The best version. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:05, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
•  Support --The Photographer (talk) 21:08, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose Somewhat better, but the haze created by the lights ruins this for me. INeverCry 21:25, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Great like this. --Yann (talk) 22:38, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

HDR

•  Comment Here in HDR
•  Question - Am I the only one who's very confused now, with 4 different versions? To me, the scattered light is not a deal-breaker, and I'd like to know which photo has the most accurate color. I'm guessing it's probably the first version. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:44, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
•  Neutral on all of these at this point. I love the image ... I expect to see Darth Vader walk past flanked by stormtroopers any minute—but can we decide which version we're going to nominate? Daniel Case (talk) 03:47, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
•  Comment Well, I do not know, I just added the corrections had requested, I do not know how you work here, you see .. The only people who have opted for "B & W" are The Photographer and ArionEstar. --Harpagornis (talk) 10:23, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

• I sort of think the decision about which one to go for will fall to you. Most of the questions have really been about: Which one of these images is closest to how the bridge actually look at night? Only you can answer that, since the pictures on Google Maps are taken during daytime. Just let us know and hopefully things will sort themselves out. We should at least be able to narrow it down to two versions. These chaos situations have unfortunately become a habit here... I think you should be glad so many people are interested in your image and think it is good enough to discuss so much. :) w.carter-Talk 18:47, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
• The first version is the one that most closely, or even HDR.--Harpagornis (talk) 22:17, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

• To me, the first version and the HDR version are quite different in appearance. Also, the lighting is better in the HDR version. But right now, no version has enough votes for a feature, so while on your say-so that this at least somewhat closely resembles what you saw, I'd be happy to support it, I am not going to oppose the first version in favor of this one. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:08, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

• I agree that the HDR version has better lighting, but if no one objects, clean and leave the first version. Thank so many opinions, but this will be a chaos. --Harpagornis (talk) 11:23, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

(procedural comment) Please cross-link 'other versions' of an image when creating them, for sanity of curation efforts. Thanks. Revent^talk 23:01, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:37, 10 August 2016 (UTC)