Golden Gate Bridge capturing the last sunlight of 2006
- Reason
- I was really pleased with the colors as they turned out. The deep blue sky and orange bridge play nicely off each other. I especially like the bridge reflection in the luminous blues and teals in the foamy bay water. I tried to invoke something of a painterly quality to the water which, in my viewing, seems to affect something of the same quality throughout the rest of the image.
- Articles this image appears in
-
49-Mile Scenic Drive
Golden Gate Bridge - Creator & Nominator
- David Ball
- Support — Mactographer 07:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
- What postprocessing did you use on the picture? -- Dschwen( A) 07:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
- You can see a before and after here. However, my particular brand of Photoshop alchemy in this case involved shooting in Camera RAW, then enhancing saturation, light and dark values, with a touch of vignetting and diffuse glow in the right places. -- Mactographer 08:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, the little animation is very instructive. Definitely makes the pic an eyecatcher. I have a couple of similar shots which could profit from a little upsexing like that. Although the vignetting is controversial in terms of enc. Pic have gotten shot down because of vignetting and here it is introduced on purpose. -- Dschwen( A) 09:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
- I'd actually suggest nominating the before-after animation, which is used in digital image editing. -- Dschwen( A) 08:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment there are too many problems over the rock... grainy, etc. It's very pretty, though. It would be much better if that white car weren't there since it's a little distracting... but that's not a big deal. gren グレン 08:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
- Reply Other than the grainy rocks, what would the etc regarding the rocks be? However, I never liked the grain either ... as well as the mentioned white car (and the unmentioned gull). So Edit 1 does some smoothing on the rocks and tones down the car and the gull. -- Mactographer 09:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
- Strong oppose, I've decided to oppose based on the watermark. In reply to your comment, it has too much grain for how low resolution it is. Being that size it needs to have no graininess. If it were much larger it would be alright to be a little grainy... but, I don't think as it is it is high enough quality for an FP. It's a pretty picture, but that's not enough. gren グレン 10:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Wrecked by heavy grain - Adrian Pingstone 09:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
- Weak Oppose Spectacular in thumbnail but lacks contrast and room above for the sky in composition. -- antilived T | C | G 10:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Support - Perfect composition-- Arad 12:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Oppose - This is really disappointing.
UntilAs long as there is a watermark, i will oppose. -- Arad 00:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Oppose - This is really disappointing.
- Oppose The composition is nice, but the contrast is poor and the car in the far left detracts from the image. Althepal 18:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Weak support The subject would be better illustrated by a panorama, but this is nevertheless a great image. The car only detracts from the image if you're looking for problems, and most people won't be. Noclip 21:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)- Oppose due to watermark. Noclip 22:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
- Weak oppose. I'm not convinced that the changes made to the image actually help it that much. The only thing I see that is improved is the shadow detail on the rocks in the foreground. The sky is a little flat in the original but how is extreme vignetting a good thing? I don't like the way the sky is virtually white in the centre of the frame and dark blue on the edges - looks like more than a touch of vignetting to me ;-). Also, compositionally the rocks on the foreground don't look particularly attractive to me as they unbalance the foreground. I would have shot this from on top of the rocks, leaving just the water underneath the bridge. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 21:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
- Maybe he's trying for a "Holga look"... --
antilived
T |
C |
G 21:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
- Thats fine if he's trying to create something artistic but it does detract from illustrating the subject.
Diliff |
(Talk)
(Contribs) 00:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- I disagree, Diliff. I don't see how more vivid colors or stronger contrast detracts from illustrating the subject. Or do you think Ansel Adams just printed his negatives straight out of the camera without any dodging or burning for contrast and effect? Yet I've never heard anyone complain that his photographs don't REALLY represent Half Dome or other locations in Yosemite. All photogs post process for better results. We just do it on computer now, rather than in the dark room. And by saturating the water and sky colors, I doubt anyone will look at it and exclaim, "What, is that a bridge? I can't tell, it's so darn color saturated!" However, if my colors aren’t to your aesthetic taste, then that’s a fair argument. To each his own.
- Thats fine if he's trying to create something artistic but it does detract from illustrating the subject.
Diliff |
(Talk)
(Contribs) 00:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- As for the copyright, the way I look at it, it’s my work, I’m going to take credit for it thank you. If an almost imperceptible watermark giving the photographer his due credit is going to get so many knickers in a twist, then I guess this will just have to be my last FP nomination. --
Mactographer 09:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- I see your point, but the thing is, Ansel Adams was creating art, not illustrating an encyclopaedia. I'm not an expert on his works and to be honest I don't see what makes his works stand out among landscape photographers but obviously his technique was excellent. I wasn't arguing that post-processing was wrong by any means. I agree we all do it, but I personally post-process my wikipedia works to be as natural looking as possible and I certainly wouldn't introduce vignetting for artistic effect. I'm not saying such a thing is "against the rules" but I do think depicting a scene as naturally and accurately as possible should be the goal for photos on wikipedia. I agree that you should retain credit for the photo, but that credit is given on the Wikipedia image page and under the terms of the licence, anyone that uses the image must attribute it to you so that is not an issue. Putting the copyright in the image itself is generally considered excessive on Wikipedia and that doesn't just apply to FP, it applies to any image. I have some issues with the licencing terms too, mainly with commercial use of photos (including the right of anyone to sell my photos without needing my permission - just as long as I am attributed, they can do whatever they want - not right in my opinion) but it seems Wiki is not going to budge on that.
Diliff |
(Talk)
(Contribs) 11:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah that's an issue I struggle with too (commercial selling) - it just isn't right in my mind. And really, I can't see why wikipedia requires such licensing, as it is an encyclopedia not a stock photography site. I suppose commons borders on that, but I think the primary purpose of commons is so that other language wikis are able to use the photos. But oh well... -- Fir0002 22:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, you have the copyright and you have put it under a license. You can give yourself credit in EXIF or whatnot. It's not distracting from the start but once you hone your eye and scan the image thoroughly it is. You have already released it into CC-BY-SA so it's not difficult or illegal for one of us to chop off the watermark from the left. No one is saying you don't deserve credit and I hope no one would publicly redistribute this without giving you credit for its creation--but, I do think it is poor practice--despite it being your right--to add watermarks like that.
gren
グレン 11:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- I see your points, Gren and Diliff. Maybe the vignette is a bit strong, but I still find it pleasing overall. At least better than the RAW camera image. I'm getting a monitor calibration system in a few weeks, we'll see if I change my mind then. As for the copyright issues, the same issues bother me that you've described. I guess keeping a small watermark is my way of saying, “The heck with it, it’s my photo, I’ll take credit.” BTW, I haven’t found a rule in print regarding watermarks. Is there a link to it? Or is it more of a "consensus" kind of thing that's so popular around here? --
Mactographer 18:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
-
[1] --
Dschwen(
A) 22:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps more applicable is this section in our image use policy, specifically the fourth paragraph. Raven4x4x 22:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
-
[1] --
Dschwen(
A) 22:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- I see your points, Gren and Diliff. Maybe the vignette is a bit strong, but I still find it pleasing overall. At least better than the RAW camera image. I'm getting a monitor calibration system in a few weeks, we'll see if I change my mind then. As for the copyright issues, the same issues bother me that you've described. I guess keeping a small watermark is my way of saying, “The heck with it, it’s my photo, I’ll take credit.” BTW, I haven’t found a rule in print regarding watermarks. Is there a link to it? Or is it more of a "consensus" kind of thing that's so popular around here? --
Mactographer 18:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- I see your point, but the thing is, Ansel Adams was creating art, not illustrating an encyclopaedia. I'm not an expert on his works and to be honest I don't see what makes his works stand out among landscape photographers but obviously his technique was excellent. I wasn't arguing that post-processing was wrong by any means. I agree we all do it, but I personally post-process my wikipedia works to be as natural looking as possible and I certainly wouldn't introduce vignetting for artistic effect. I'm not saying such a thing is "against the rules" but I do think depicting a scene as naturally and accurately as possible should be the goal for photos on wikipedia. I agree that you should retain credit for the photo, but that credit is given on the Wikipedia image page and under the terms of the licence, anyone that uses the image must attribute it to you so that is not an issue. Putting the copyright in the image itself is generally considered excessive on Wikipedia and that doesn't just apply to FP, it applies to any image. I have some issues with the licencing terms too, mainly with commercial use of photos (including the right of anyone to sell my photos without needing my permission - just as long as I am attributed, they can do whatever they want - not right in my opinion) but it seems Wiki is not going to budge on that.
Diliff |
(Talk)
(Contribs) 11:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- As for the copyright, the way I look at it, it’s my work, I’m going to take credit for it thank you. If an almost imperceptible watermark giving the photographer his due credit is going to get so many knickers in a twist, then I guess this will just have to be my last FP nomination. --
Mactographer 09:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Oppose grain, watermark... - m w 22:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose- watermark, Remove it and I'll support. Jorcoga Hi!02:38, Saturday, January 27 2007
- Edit #1 now no longer has a watermark and is slightly larger. -- Mactographer 05:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Image is a fabrication, it misrepresents the colors of a real place for the sake of art. We're an encyclopedia, not a gallery. -- Gmaxwell 21:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Not promoted Raven4x4x 01:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)