Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Bixby Creek Bridge

Bixby Creek Bridge

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Feb 2014 at 02:59:46 (UTC)

Reason: Large scenic photo wih views of the Pacific Ocean
Articles in which this image appears: California State Route 1
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured_pictures#Engineering_and_technology
Creator: Diliff

Support as nominator --///EuroCarGT 02:59, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Striking image. Great perspective lines. — Cirt (talk) 04:03, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Revisiting per request: I like both of them. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 04:27, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I actually hadn't considered this one as a FP previously, but I suppose it has the necessary qualities. Actually the image is not just in California State Route 1, but has as much, if not more EV in Bixby Creek Bridge and Big Sur. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 00:01, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support despite modest EV in its current use.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:22, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think it has modest EV for the articles it illustrates. I think people often confuse encyclopaedic value with their own personal interest in the subject. If people are interested in knowing what the bridge looks like, how better could you describe it than with a high resolution photo clearly showing the bridge and its surroundings? Ðiliff «» (Talk) 07:41, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Conditional~~ Support I'm not really a modern photography expert - the perspective looks a little odd, insofar as the bridge looks slightly twisted - you can almost see the roadway on the left, but not as you move right. Is that normal for this type of image? Given a reassurance, I'm happy to support. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 01:41, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that it looks strange, but I suspect it's simply because the bridge is slightly curved at that end (Google Maps evidence to back me up). Because of the bend in the road, it is cambered. This is pretty normal in road building, and helps make driving more comfortable around bends. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 07:41, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you, that's all I needed to know. =) Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 18:12, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I appreciate the effort of EurocarGT to try to improve the photo but in my opinion, I don't think it is necessary, and nor has the edit actually improved the image. It now has halos in the sky typical of HDR processing or the overuse of the Shadow/Highlight tool in Photoshop, and doesn't look as realistic to my eye. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 07:41, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then is the original the best way to go? ///EuroCarGT 16:00, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion is yes, the original is fine. It could be brightened ever so slightly perhaps, but it would be better for me to go back to the original file and do it properly. Even so, I don't think it's necessary. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 22:06, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alrighty then! ///EuroCarGT 22:41, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Original only. Saffron Blaze (talk) 16:37, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Original. This FP in Commons may be also worth to consider even though I prefer Diliff's version. Jee 08:04, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I wasn't aware that there was already an FP on Commons. I may be biased but I prefer my version too, it shows the bridge and the ocean below more completely, although the lighting is quite different. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 10:49, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Original only too. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 18:24, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Bixby Creek Bridge, California, USA - May 2013.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 02:59, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just one of the users, who !voted before the addition of the edit, expressed a positive opinion about it, and every user afterward supported the original only. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 02:59, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]