Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Nanpu Bridge 1.jpg

File:Nanpu Bridge 1.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Mar 2020 at 05:53:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Bridges#China
Info created, uploaded and nominated by kallerna. —kallerna (talk) 05:53, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice light, ideal POV. I actually had to sneak into a residential building to get this POV. —kallerna (talk) 05:53, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'll Support this. Very interesting but dystopic urban photo, what with the mind-numbing sameness of the buildings on the left and soul-deadening architecture of the great majority of the buildings in the picture, plus the aggressive gray smog. Interesting bridge, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:54, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question: any chance to see a version that hasn't been downsampled more than twice? --The Cosmonaut (talk) 08:27, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I uploaded more megapixels. —kallerna (talk) 23:30, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question - Is that full size now? I hope so. If not, upload the full-size file. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:09, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Wilfredor (talk) 16:21, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Nice shot. But the file is too small for me.--Famberhorst (talk) 18:41, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Still roughly twice the pixels here. —kallerna (talk)

Question: why such a small file? That is no longer necessary in 2020.--Famberhorst (talk) 05:52, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why that was not a problem on the another nomination? If you mean the compression, no information is lost. No point on uploading huge files just to use more space. The same thing with reasonable downsampling - no information gets lost. —kallerna (talk) 08:17, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:06, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question The Fujifilm X-T30 offers 6240x4160 Pixel, does it? --Milseburg (talk) 11:26, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm going to judge the picture in its current resolution (5400x3200) and would not demand any bigger version, as it's now obvious for me that this will not add more detail. The quality (sharpness) of the picture I would evaluate as "just OK for QI". The bridge itself might have wow potential, but in this case there's just too much of distracting elements in the picture to make it excellent for me. Sorry --A.Savin 14:23, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 17:44, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per A. Savin. While I have fond memories of this bridge from my first trip to China, where you get a good glimpse of the Lujiazui skyline as you're coming in from Pudong airport, this picture is not FP level. Daniel Case (talk) 07:24, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per A.Savin.--Peulle (talk) 08:00, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good QI and nicely dystopian photo, but not interesting enough in terms of light or composition for FP to me. Cmao20 (talk) 11:18, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination. —kallerna (talk) 14:59, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]