- Reason
- I grew up in Pittsburgh, and have never seen it look better than it does in this picture.
- Articles this image appears in
- Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
- Creator
- Dr. Cash
- Support as nominator -- Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 22:25, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
- The caption needs some
- Heh. Sorry. Fixed Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 22:35, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. Looks nice, but I find it disappointingly small. The author seems to be a small-picture-uploader who hasn't discoverd / is avoiding commons. -- Dschwen 23:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with Dschwen. Also I suppose this pic could be added to the gallery in Duquesne Incline. Spencer T♦ C 00:23, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
- Support within our size requirements and beautifully shot. Durova Charge! 01:38, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
- Weak oppose I find the funicular distracting, it looks too big when compared to the downtown core. Image tilted slightly to the right. The water doesn't look right either - is it artifacts or does the river natuarlly look like that? Higher resolution would be better. -- Uncle Bungle ( talk) 02:39, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
- The rivers are colored correctly. I don't think I've ever seen them blue. Years of dumping crap into them will do that.
Dr. Cash (
talk)
13:48, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
- What is your opinion on the overall colour balance issue, rather than just the river? Is this edit inaccurate? If the photo was taken around one hour from sunset, then I would expect it to look reasonably neutral (maybe ever-so-slightly more warm than the edit, but cooler than the original) as the blue light scattering effect doesn't usually kick in until a bit closer to sunset. As for the colour of the river, I would imagine that it depends on the weather - if there is a blue sky, the river will reflect more blue. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 14:43, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose per water artifacts mentioned by UB, and the color balance is off, unless the photo was taken around dusk or dawn, which seems unlikely, given the angle of the shadows. Might change to weak oppose if this were fixed.
de
Bivort
04:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, this shot is taken from the west looking east. That's pretty much how you'd expect things to look at sunset.
- The photo was taken probably about an hour from sunset. Dr. Cash ( talk) 13:48, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose. Yeah, colour balance is way off on this one and image quality is a bit poor for a DSLR shot. Nice composition, but I've seen much nicer shots at dusk. This one just looks a bit flat. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 12:39, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
- Note: I've fixed the incline and the colour. --
Slashme (
talk)
12:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
- You REALLY shouldn't upload edits over the picture. For one thing, this shot is taken from just west of Pittsburgh, looking east, so it could very well have been taken at Sunset, with the sun behind the photographer.
- Uploading a significant edit over a previous filename is not a good idea, particularly while a featured picture candidacy is underway. In future, please upload under a new filename with a summary of the changes in the edit notes and a link back to the original image. Durova Charge! 21:10, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
- You REALLY shouldn't upload edits over the picture. For one thing, this shot is taken from just west of Pittsburgh, looking east, so it could very well have been taken at Sunset, with the sun behind the photographer.
- Oppose. Small and noisy. Nautica Shad es 13:57, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
- Support. Looks good, quality is acceptable. Clegs ( talk) 14:43, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
- Weak oppose. The EXIF timestamp reported at Commons is "15:38, 19 May 2008", although the time zone could be in error. Sunset was 20:34 EDT. The color balance looks too warm to me. It also looks to me like there's a slight clockwise tilt. This is an accessible and popular place to photograph the Pittsburgh skyline, so the photo should be of the very highest quality, and preferably at a higher resolution. -- Coneslayer ( talk) 14:22, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Colour balance and the compression artifacts are a bit of an annoyance. Latics ( talk) 08:22, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Not promoted -- jjron ( talk) 10:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
- Reason
- I grew up in Pittsburgh, and have never seen it look better than it does in this picture.
- Articles this image appears in
- Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
- Creator
- Dr. Cash
- Support as nominator -- Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 22:25, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
- The caption needs some
- Heh. Sorry. Fixed Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 22:35, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. Looks nice, but I find it disappointingly small. The author seems to be a small-picture-uploader who hasn't discoverd / is avoiding commons. -- Dschwen 23:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with Dschwen. Also I suppose this pic could be added to the gallery in Duquesne Incline. Spencer T♦ C 00:23, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
- Support within our size requirements and beautifully shot. Durova Charge! 01:38, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
- Weak oppose I find the funicular distracting, it looks too big when compared to the downtown core. Image tilted slightly to the right. The water doesn't look right either - is it artifacts or does the river natuarlly look like that? Higher resolution would be better. -- Uncle Bungle ( talk) 02:39, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
- The rivers are colored correctly. I don't think I've ever seen them blue. Years of dumping crap into them will do that.
Dr. Cash (
talk)
13:48, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
- What is your opinion on the overall colour balance issue, rather than just the river? Is this edit inaccurate? If the photo was taken around one hour from sunset, then I would expect it to look reasonably neutral (maybe ever-so-slightly more warm than the edit, but cooler than the original) as the blue light scattering effect doesn't usually kick in until a bit closer to sunset. As for the colour of the river, I would imagine that it depends on the weather - if there is a blue sky, the river will reflect more blue. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 14:43, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose per water artifacts mentioned by UB, and the color balance is off, unless the photo was taken around dusk or dawn, which seems unlikely, given the angle of the shadows. Might change to weak oppose if this were fixed.
de
Bivort
04:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, this shot is taken from the west looking east. That's pretty much how you'd expect things to look at sunset.
- The photo was taken probably about an hour from sunset. Dr. Cash ( talk) 13:48, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose. Yeah, colour balance is way off on this one and image quality is a bit poor for a DSLR shot. Nice composition, but I've seen much nicer shots at dusk. This one just looks a bit flat. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 12:39, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
- Note: I've fixed the incline and the colour. --
Slashme (
talk)
12:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
- You REALLY shouldn't upload edits over the picture. For one thing, this shot is taken from just west of Pittsburgh, looking east, so it could very well have been taken at Sunset, with the sun behind the photographer.
- Uploading a significant edit over a previous filename is not a good idea, particularly while a featured picture candidacy is underway. In future, please upload under a new filename with a summary of the changes in the edit notes and a link back to the original image. Durova Charge! 21:10, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
- You REALLY shouldn't upload edits over the picture. For one thing, this shot is taken from just west of Pittsburgh, looking east, so it could very well have been taken at Sunset, with the sun behind the photographer.
- Oppose. Small and noisy. Nautica Shad es 13:57, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
- Support. Looks good, quality is acceptable. Clegs ( talk) 14:43, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
- Weak oppose. The EXIF timestamp reported at Commons is "15:38, 19 May 2008", although the time zone could be in error. Sunset was 20:34 EDT. The color balance looks too warm to me. It also looks to me like there's a slight clockwise tilt. This is an accessible and popular place to photograph the Pittsburgh skyline, so the photo should be of the very highest quality, and preferably at a higher resolution. -- Coneslayer ( talk) 14:22, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Colour balance and the compression artifacts are a bit of an annoyance. Latics ( talk) 08:22, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Not promoted -- jjron ( talk) 10:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)