Wikimedia Commons

Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Jackson's Sawmill Covered Bridge Three Quarters View 3264px.jpg

< Commons:Featured picture candidates

Image:Jackson's Sawmill Covered Bridge Three Quarters View 3264px.jpg, not featured edit

 

  • It's not the HDR that's important, I only state that to be absolutely clear that it's been manipulated as such. Evaluators tend to oppose images that have been manipulated when it wasn't clearly stated. It was not my intention to showcase it as an HDR image, as I think that's a very minor aspect (basically it kept the sky from being somewhat blown out and didn't affect the rest). The special part of this image is how it showcases a traditional Lancaster County covered bridge. See this article for more information on these bridges. -- Ram-Man 18:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support A nice image. Majorly (hot!) 18:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Oppose Good quality of picture, but the subject of it is totally tedious. --Karelj 20:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Oppose - Not special enough, good technique though. The photographer of the "Bridges of Madison County", by Robert James Waller, used to get up very early in the morning just to get the best lighting... Alvesgaspar 22:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • And what would be special enough? I just don't get it. These bridges are historical and iconic, and this is a great picture technically. More specifically, what does this picture lack that these here do not? -- Ram-Man 23:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I really don't know, all attempts for parameterizing beauty seem a little ridiculous. But although we cannot explain the "wow factor", it happens quite often than we agree in identifying its realizations. There are quite a couple of examples in this page right now (at least one of them is yours) - Alvesgaspar 23:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Maybe it needs an Amish horse and buggy (this and this too). You said so yourself, this image is good technically. From an artistic standpoint, it has all sorts of visually appealing attributes, from the bright primary color contrasts (Red, Green, Blue) to the various lines showing perspective, contrast and texture. It even has a farm for the unspoken barn similarity. Perhaps it's unfamiliarity for many people who have not ever seen such a covered bridge or witnessed the cultural romanticism surrounding it. I still don't see why most other structures have a wow factor more than this one. I find some of them more boring or only there because they are of a famous object. (Of course some are truely exceptional) I realize art is in the eye of the beholder, but sometimes I just wish I could understand it, as facinating as it is to see all these people try to vote on art. -- Ram-Man 23:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Oppose I have seen a lot of covered bridges, mainly in Vermont and New Hampshire. And these bridges have something romantic. But this picture dont show this romantic thing. Try another daytime, another point of view (maybe with the river on the picture too) or even another season (indian summer for example). --Simonizer 07:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Other points of view: inside, side, underside, and inside again. Other than that, I just don't get it. This FP candidate is basically unanimous, so what does it have that this one doesn't? -- Ram-Man 12:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This FP candidate is a capture of a moment, with a great composition. A few moments later the motif was gone. Your motif is a covered bridge that dont move and it will be at the same place until a fire or an earthquake or the regional administration destroys it. ;-) So you have enough time to find the best possible compostition for your motif. Thats the difference. Here are some beautiful pictures with covered bridges: good light and colours, great composition, sky and colours, great composition, another great one and wonderful! Just my two cents worth! --Simonizer 14:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for the links. It helps explain what you are looking for in a FP covered bridge photo. I have quite a few photos (not of this bridge) that are similar in composition to the first two, speaking nothing of other technical aspects. I personally find them boring (!), having taken so many of them in that basic configuration. To me, the "three-quarters" view is the most dynamic and pleasing. I don't care for the hard lighting of the first one, although fall colors are never a bad thing. Sky and colors are good on the second, but again I find the composition boring. The third one is a great shot that has emotion, but as a educational tool, it's less useful. Nothing wrong with the fourth. The fifth one is beautiful. It reminds me of this and this (ignoring the obvious exposure differences). Now that I've cataloged 28 of the county's covered bridges, I may go back to them from time to time at the ideal time of day and selectively try to get better pictures technically. Not sure we'll ever agree about some of the compositional issues though! -- Ram-Man 15:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just for your information, I have uploaded 178 covered bridge pictures. Most of them are not FP quality because I had to sacrifice lighting to get so many pictures in a span of just 3 or 4 days. I've tried all sorts of compositions. I'd try my first QI as a FP, but I fear that it would be shot down because of the exposure, despite being very difficult to take well under only natural lighting. Either you blow out the highlights (daytime), or you slow the shutter speeds and introduce long exposure noise (sunset, sunrise). I suppose the compass orientation plays a huge part, but I can't really move the bridge for better lighting :) -- Ram-Man 15:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Info For me, the thing that's missing in this nomination is interesting lighting. That's not always needed, but here the combination of flat lighting and a straightforward treatment of the subject gives the impression (wrong I know) that this is a simple record photograph. Not all technically excellent images are necessarily right as FP material. I for one look for at least some 'wow' factor which is missing here. Hope that helps; just my view. --MichaelMaggs 21:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 06:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/Image:Jackson%27s_Sawmill_Covered_Bridge_Three_Quarters_View_3264px.jpg&oldid=5739429"