Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Albert Bridge at night, London, UK - Diliff.jpg

Albert Bridge at night edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 20 Jul 2015 at 17:04:36 (UTC)

Original – Albert Bridge at night, looking south across the Thames to Battersea, a suburb in South West London.

Reason: It's an unusual and interesting view of Albert Bridge, a notable bridge on the River Thames in London.
Articles in which this image appears: Albert Bridge, London
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Creator: User:Diliff

Support as nominator – Ðiliff «» (Talk) 17:04, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - its awesome -- DreamSparrow ^Chat 18:26, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Indeed. I love this view — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:31, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very impressive-pinpoint clarity.I love the little touches-the yellow lines changing to pink,the notice that 'Troops must break rank whilst crossing the bridge'And very impressively nothing to distract the eye-pavements beautifully clean,not a speck of litter.How on earth did you manage to achieve that?! Lemon martini (talk) 01:24, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I didn't go around picking up all the litter if that's what you're asking! The hard part was actually capturing it while cars drove across it and caused trouble for me. It's a 5 exposures x 2 rows x 3 columns panorama, and took about 5-10 minutes to shoot, each segment taken in between cars and people walking across the bridge. Because I was actually standing in the right hand turn lane to take the shot (as you can see from the arrow in the foreground), I actually had to get off the road at one point and come back when the car had gone, trying to find exactly the same point to set the tripod up on again. Technically challenging to say the least. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 11:09, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't believe that for a moment; it's CGI (Not complaining; I love CGI; it's better now Ted Danson is in it). Belle (talk) 23:36, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very nice.--Godot13 (talk) 02:39, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support-Jobas (talk) 17:36, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Extremely bridgey. Belle (talk) 23:36, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Belle, apologies for the absence of monkeys in hats. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 10:33, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - What's this obsession you have with monkeys in hats? Weirdo. [wink] Belle (talk) 23:54, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow... The quality is awesome, and love the look on the lights - the way they sparkle... gazhiley 16:34, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Aesthetically I think it is a lovely picture, but I am uneasy about such heavily faked photos being used for encyclopedic purposes. 109.153.244.21 (talk) 03:10, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Faked how? gazhiley 09:06, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I concur with Gaz... Why do you think it's faked? It's not at all. I'm a bit uneasy about anonymous people coming in here and making false accusations about the authenticity of my photography! ;-) If you want to take a ridiculously hard line on it, all photography is 'fake' because it is a two dimensional representation of a three dimensional space and therefore isn't 'reality'. But if you accept that there are limitations to what photography can show, then you should be able to accept that stitching might not absolutely capture a moment in time (it captures multiple moments and combines them seamlessly), but nor does it need to. It's a static object and this is absolutely how it looks from this position. There's nothing fake about it! Ðiliff «» (Talk) 09:36, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I believe this is the same IP editor who is a hardliner against panoramas in general. Mind, I may be wrong. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 10:25, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Hard to know what exactly you're dealing with when you can't verify any editing history and the accusation is left unexplained. Either way, I'd like to hear why they think it's faked, and to clarify further if necessary. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 10:53, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - The photographer explains above that it was stitched together from multiple images taken at different times. In other words, it is not an image of a scene that ever actually existed. That is why I said it is "faked". This is not an egregious example, but because of the wider possibility for more misleading manipulation, I am generally against doctoring of images for Wikiepdia. 109.153.244.21 (talk) 11:46, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        That's an incredibly narrow-minded way of looking at it. The scene as you see it here did actually exist. It's simply that my methodology requires multiple images for a wider angle view and higher resolution. And to set the record straight, was over a period of 5-10 minutes. It's not like I took some photos during the day and some at night and blended them together. The end result is better than a single photo, but it is not less real. In any case, I ask you, why does it matter that the component images were taken at slightly different times? As I said already, it's a static object. It didn't change in any way between the shots, and therefore doesn't misrepresent the bridge. If you're going to argue that it's been 'doctored', you have to be specific about the significance of the doctoring to its encyclopaedic value and how it misrepresents reality. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 16:49, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        Fake is a strong word to use for that description. At the most I would go with manipulated, but as Ðiliff has pointed out it's a static object, and each stitch is an actual image not edited, so this is about as accurate as it's going to get. The alternative is a much smaller image, with random cars moving (and most likely blurred due to the length of exposure needed for this level of clarity), and people walking etc - this is a much better image EV wise. Plus many many high quality pictures on this site are stitched, so you are fighting a losing battle here I'm afraid. But thank you for your comment, and feel free to register a username so that you may be able to have your opionion counted as a vote - the more the better... gazhiley 09:24, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey IP, it's not really CGI; that was just me pulling Diliff's leg as I think it would have been easier to do with CGI. If it had Bigfoot crossing the bridge you'd have a point though; have you spotted him? Belle (talk) 11:27, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Albert Bridge at night, London, UK - Diliff.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 17:08, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Added image to Places/Panorama instead. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 17:08, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]