Comment: Not currently used in any article. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-01-8 19:19
Support Someone has since added it to the
Brooklyn Bridge article. It is a stunning photo that I think illustrates the bridge and its surroundings quite well. However, the original suffers from severe JPEG artifacts, and it's really too bad about the flag. I uploaded an edit, and while they are still visible, I don't think they are noticeable enough to prevent it from gaining FP status. ~
MDD469620:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Comment: I don't know... the image doesn't seem all that clear. It almost looks like a painting, not a photo. Personally, living 3 miles from the bridge, I've seen it look much better, and if someone dug harder a better picture could be found. I don't agree with the "surroundings" comment above, its true surroundings would show parts of Brooklyn and more of Manhattan, like the 1890 map in the
article did. Not that it makes this photo bad, just that a surroundings argument doesn't really hold up. --
JPM21:56, 8 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Comment Seeing as I've never been there, you're probably right. I guess I need to be a bit more careful with my comments. ~
MDD469622:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Strong support. I hope the very slight blurriness (or lack of clarity, or whatever) doesn't keep this stunning image from being featured. It just might look more like a painting than a photo - but there's no harm in that!
Zafiroblue0519:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Strong support either. It is a very nice shot, and I really like the way the lights reflect off the water. Gives it a kind of
Cyberpunk look.
JQF21:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)reply
OpposeThis is a very blurry picture. It only shows one of the spans, and the surroundings aren't exactly all that great.. especially since its in NYC and there are certainly more appealling angles. Though, this is an interesting angle, and I'll admit I've never seen the bridge in this light. Also, the image doesn't exactly provide much in the way of contrasts, and I'm afraid, because of the darkness and few colors in the image, that this is not salvagable.drumguy8800 -
speak?04:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)reply
So ya know, drop what I said about the contrasts and lighting too. The first image is a lot better than the edited, which I viewed. I still oppose due to the poor surroundings and lack of focus on the actual bridge..
drumguy8800 -
speak?05:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Is it just the blurriness that you don't like about the edit I made? I rotated it slightly and tried to smooth out the JPEG artifacts, which unfortunately does smudge it up a bit. I was hoping that the edit would appeal to people who would've oppose based on the severe artifacting. ~
MDD469623:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose second. The second is not as good as the first. (I only don't support the first because I only support images created by wikipedians, but I do not oppose the first). --
Gmaxwell06:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)reply
( + ) Support I really like the atmosphere. Being a country kid it is always wierd going into the city and seeing how the night sky looks - too bright and red --
Fir000202:05, 12 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose. It's not a bad picture, but all in all there are just a few too many things I don't like about it: the poles in the foreground, the fact that you don't see all the way to the other end of the bridge and the lighting makes the wires in the bridge hard to see.
enochlau (
talk)
06:02, 15 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose. Nice shot, but somehow this doesn't really impress me. Maybe it's the dull color, the brown clouds - just a general murkiness, and the angle of the shot doesn't show the bridge at its best. --
Janke |
Talk08:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Comment: Not currently used in any article. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-01-8 19:19
Support Someone has since added it to the
Brooklyn Bridge article. It is a stunning photo that I think illustrates the bridge and its surroundings quite well. However, the original suffers from severe JPEG artifacts, and it's really too bad about the flag. I uploaded an edit, and while they are still visible, I don't think they are noticeable enough to prevent it from gaining FP status. ~
MDD469620:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Comment: I don't know... the image doesn't seem all that clear. It almost looks like a painting, not a photo. Personally, living 3 miles from the bridge, I've seen it look much better, and if someone dug harder a better picture could be found. I don't agree with the "surroundings" comment above, its true surroundings would show parts of Brooklyn and more of Manhattan, like the 1890 map in the
article did. Not that it makes this photo bad, just that a surroundings argument doesn't really hold up. --
JPM21:56, 8 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Comment Seeing as I've never been there, you're probably right. I guess I need to be a bit more careful with my comments. ~
MDD469622:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Strong support. I hope the very slight blurriness (or lack of clarity, or whatever) doesn't keep this stunning image from being featured. It just might look more like a painting than a photo - but there's no harm in that!
Zafiroblue0519:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Strong support either. It is a very nice shot, and I really like the way the lights reflect off the water. Gives it a kind of
Cyberpunk look.
JQF21:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)reply
OpposeThis is a very blurry picture. It only shows one of the spans, and the surroundings aren't exactly all that great.. especially since its in NYC and there are certainly more appealling angles. Though, this is an interesting angle, and I'll admit I've never seen the bridge in this light. Also, the image doesn't exactly provide much in the way of contrasts, and I'm afraid, because of the darkness and few colors in the image, that this is not salvagable.drumguy8800 -
speak?04:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)reply
So ya know, drop what I said about the contrasts and lighting too. The first image is a lot better than the edited, which I viewed. I still oppose due to the poor surroundings and lack of focus on the actual bridge..
drumguy8800 -
speak?05:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Is it just the blurriness that you don't like about the edit I made? I rotated it slightly and tried to smooth out the JPEG artifacts, which unfortunately does smudge it up a bit. I was hoping that the edit would appeal to people who would've oppose based on the severe artifacting. ~
MDD469623:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose second. The second is not as good as the first. (I only don't support the first because I only support images created by wikipedians, but I do not oppose the first). --
Gmaxwell06:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)reply
( + ) Support I really like the atmosphere. Being a country kid it is always wierd going into the city and seeing how the night sky looks - too bright and red --
Fir000202:05, 12 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose. It's not a bad picture, but all in all there are just a few too many things I don't like about it: the poles in the foreground, the fact that you don't see all the way to the other end of the bridge and the lighting makes the wires in the bridge hard to see.
enochlau (
talk)
06:02, 15 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose. Nice shot, but somehow this doesn't really impress me. Maybe it's the dull color, the brown clouds - just a general murkiness, and the angle of the shot doesn't show the bridge at its best. --
Janke |
Talk08:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)reply