Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Lower Manhattan from Jersey City November 2016 002.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Dec 2023 at 08:45:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes/United States#New York City
Info created by King of Hearts - uploaded by King of Hearts - nominated by King of Hearts -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:45, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:45, 22 November 2023 (UTC)- Support Beautiful! Now I want to go to NYC - Benh (talk) 08:48, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
- Support -- Ivar (talk) 09:02, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
- Support Nice light, sky and composition -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:01, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
- Support The Pink Hour. Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:51, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
- Support ★ 12:50, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
- Support --Milseburg (talk) 14:59, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
Neutral The distant buildings seem unclear, this is due to the aperture, it would have been better to combine 3 or more images using Focus Stacking --Wilfredor (talk) 15:42, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
- what are you talking about? On distant subjects, DOF doesn't affect sharpness like at close distance. I personally find that all is very clear and sharp despite it being a very long exposure shot and don't think stacking gimmicks would much improve things. Could you pin point the specific area that is of concern to you? - Benh (talk) 16:47, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
- Wilfredor certainly does not refer to DoF, but to diffraction; at ƒ/11 we already have a small, but visible reduction of the lens resolution by diffraction. And actually the scyscrapers are very sharp, but not as sharp as they could be (theoretically). So Wilfredor has a good point here. However it is quite likely that the sharpness of the cityscape is also degraded by some haze; in this case the diffraction has no perceptible influence. And I also think that the cityscape is still more than sharp enough in this image. So while in general it is a very good idea to remember the diffraction (on the newest high-resolution cameras its influence is even more noticeable), it does not diminish the value of this wonderful photo. Focus stacking can also introduce many additional problems, so IMHO in this case it was the smarter choice to stay with the good old single-shot ƒ/11 approach. --Aristeas (talk) 17:33, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
- In my experience, there is no perceptible difference between f/8 and f/11 on a 24 MP camera. It could have been sharper if I had used a prime lens and/or made a stitched panorama, but the lighting conditions were changing quickly and I didn't have time for that. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:31, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
- I don't know mate. Judging by this stopping down to f/11 doesn't degrade that much in the center and even improve resolution in the borders. Anyways, @Wilfredor did you even look at the picture as a whole? Maybe you'll appreciate the excellent timing, how the water is rendered smooth with the long exposure, the colours of the sky, the reflexion on the glass... But yeah pixels are probably the things to look at first.- Benh (talk) 19:35, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
- I think the image is quite calm and calm, but when it comes to inanimate objects, I would always like to see them more clearly, I am sure that 3 photographs joined together would have facilitated this. I have had this problem before and I always choose to take several photos with the technique I mentioned. We have photos of cities in the commons and King himself has already taken richer, sharper photos. --Wilfredor (talk) 22:22, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
- Sorry, I mean in terms of diffraction. So @Benh: I agree with you and that's why I now default to f/11 unless I'm sure f/8 is adequate. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:07, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
- Sorry my answer was to Aristeas's. I think I started my comment before you posted yours, which I agree with. - Benh (talk) 09:11, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
- I don't know mate. Judging by this stopping down to f/11 doesn't degrade that much in the center and even improve resolution in the borders. Anyways, @Wilfredor did you even look at the picture as a whole? Maybe you'll appreciate the excellent timing, how the water is rendered smooth with the long exposure, the colours of the sky, the reflexion on the glass... But yeah pixels are probably the things to look at first.- Benh (talk) 19:35, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
- In my experience, there is no perceptible difference between f/8 and f/11 on a 24 MP camera. It could have been sharper if I had used a prime lens and/or made a stitched panorama, but the lighting conditions were changing quickly and I didn't have time for that. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:31, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
- Wilfredor certainly does not refer to DoF, but to diffraction; at ƒ/11 we already have a small, but visible reduction of the lens resolution by diffraction. And actually the scyscrapers are very sharp, but not as sharp as they could be (theoretically). So Wilfredor has a good point here. However it is quite likely that the sharpness of the cityscape is also degraded by some haze; in this case the diffraction has no perceptible influence. And I also think that the cityscape is still more than sharp enough in this image. So while in general it is a very good idea to remember the diffraction (on the newest high-resolution cameras its influence is even more noticeable), it does not diminish the value of this wonderful photo. Focus stacking can also introduce many additional problems, so IMHO in this case it was the smarter choice to stay with the good old single-shot ƒ/11 approach. --Aristeas (talk) 17:33, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
- what are you talking about? On distant subjects, DOF doesn't affect sharpness like at close distance. I personally find that all is very clear and sharp despite it being a very long exposure shot and don't think stacking gimmicks would much improve things. Could you pin point the specific area that is of concern to you? - Benh (talk) 16:47, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
- Support --Ermell (talk) 16:25, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
- Support Great light and atmosphere. --Aristeas (talk) 17:20, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
- Support Really nice view. --Selbymay (talk) 21:23, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
- Support I'm wowed! -- Radomianin (talk) 08:47, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
- Support --Harlock81 (talk) 15:17, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
Oppose I love the light and main subject, but the crop is IMO unfortunate with branches and the shadowed lighthouse. —kallerna (talk) 18:51, 23 November 2023 (UTC)- Support --imehling (talk) 20:28, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
- Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 20:55, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
- Support --Giles Laurent (talk) 23:21, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:19, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
Comment Gallery tweaked. Thanks all the hard work by you and other US photographers, the US now has a cityscapes gallery page of its own: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes/United States. Keep up the good work! --Cart (talk) 12:35, 25 November 2023 (UTC)- Support Great compo and light Poco a poco (talk) 10:29, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
- Support --Mile (talk) 12:37, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 18 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /-- Radomianin (talk) 13:09, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Cityscapes/United States#New York City
