Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Second Severn Crossing

Reason: I took this on an atmospheric evening last summer, having used the bridge frequently to travel from my home in Cardiff to work in Bristol. Although the bridge is in silhouette, I think this shot does a good job of illustrating its structure and size, and is visually appealing and eyecatching. It's already featured on Commons but I hesitated to nominate it here because I thought it'd be shot down for unc¹; I've reconsidered because (bias aside) I believe it's highly enc.

¹unencyclopaedicity

Support (both my versions, slight preference for original - weak oppose Armedblowfish's edit) — YFB ¿ 18:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support original, weak support alt 1, oppose alt 2, Needs to be looked at in full size since the thumbnail doesn't show off the detail of the image effectively (esp the diagonal cables). Btw, I swtiched the image to panorama in the article. ~ trialsanderrors 23:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Outstanding quality! the clouds have almost no noise. well done. -Fcb981 23:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose while the resolution is high and quality decent, I feel that the backlighting kills the encyclopedic value. You can only see so much of the structure, and I would rather see the subject lit than in shadow.-Andrew c 01:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Nice job! --⁪froth^T 04:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose -nice picture bu its too dark -Nelro
Suppot - Excelent composition and atmosphere is this contre-jour picture. I like the dark menacing shades of the clouds above the bridge. - Alvesgaspar 17:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support.~~ Willing to overlook lighting, but what about the left side of the bridge?--Here T oHelp 02:52, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, good point - I'm not sure what happened there. I've restitched the image with the rest of the frames and uploaded the result as an alternative version which shows the entire bridge. I'm not convinced that any particularly useful information is gained by this addition and I can't decide whether the first seems a more balanced composition. Thanks for pointing it out - any opinions either way? --YFB ¿ 07:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Maye it's good for commons but I don't see the Enc value for Wikipedia. I like it in a way but the subject (i think it's the bridge) is too dark (no detail) --Arad 22:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arad, thanks for commenting. If you're struggling to make out the subject, it may be that your monitor isn't properly calibrated. Many monitors are set too dark "out of the box" and need adjusting to get full shadow detail. Admittedly this image is dark (as Alvesgaspar puts it, "contre-jour") but it should be easy to see the bridge's structure in considerable detail on a properly calibrated display. --YFB ¿ 01:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the reply but I can assure you my monitor is perfectly calibrated. It's just that I don't think the image is a perfect FP for Wikipedia. It's a very good photo indeed, --Arad 23:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, just wanted to check we had a level playing field :-) --YFB ¿ 02:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's going to be promoted with or without my vote anyway ;-) --Arad 06:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support Alternative version Tomer T 20:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support The detail is great when viewed at full resolution. In case it makes a difference, I created a version of this with slightly greater contrast and brightness.

Oppose alternative version with slightly greater contrast and brightness, blows out the sky. --Dschwen 12:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So... Which version? Moving to "additional input required" section. --KFP (talk | contribs) 11:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm for the unedited alternate. That's just me, though.--Here T oHelp 22:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support alternative, Oppose alternative version 2 I can't really decide what version is better (original or alternative), but I have a slight preference for the alternative (after all, there's more information in it). The sky of version seems almost too bright in my opinion. -Wutschwlllm 13:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Second Severn Crossing pano 2 s.jpg --KFP (talk | contribs) 13:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]