High EV and quality. We have few FP on San Francisco and Golden Gate Bridge, but if I am not mistaking it is the first FP nominated image, which shows San Francisco and his two famous bridges in connection to each others
Oppose -- Yes, a beautiful picture. But where is SF bay? I only see the Golden Gate bridge clearly. --
Alvesgaspar (
talk) 01:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Come on now, Alves, the bay is under the fog :)--
Mbz1 (
talk) 01:39, 7 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Come on, Mila, you know well what I mean... --
Alvesgaspar (
talk) 01:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)reply
To tell you the truth, no I do not. There are 2 Bridges at the image
Golden Gate Bridge and part of
San Francisco – Oakland Bay Bridge, there is
Fort Mason that is seen clearly, and located at the Bay. There is a shoreline. Of course it is not the whole Bay, but to say you see no Bay...
What argument would you make to the effect that the EV is improved with the fog?
Noodle snacks (
talk) 02:18, 7 March 2010 (UTC)reply
None, absolutely none, but let's say I have an absolutely the same image, without the fog. What extra could be seen at the image? Only the water of the Bay. The fog makes the the image more atmospheric, but neither adds nor subtracts EV.--
Mbz1 (
talk) 02:24, 7 March 2010 (UTC)reply
This is SF we are talking about. Surely it would lack EV if there was no fog! (I once sailed under the bridge in fog so thick you could barely see the bridge from the water). The image shows SF Bay as it often is. In a pretty way.
Sabine's Sunbirdtalk 04:53, 7 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Oppose I think the fog is hiding the things that would give this image EV. The bridge itself is partly concealed, and even more so in the Alt. Just as we feel entitled to use false colour images where appropriate (electron microscopy, satellite IR imagery), we're equally entitled to have the SF bay free of fog, or nocturnal animals in plain daylight. I'm afraid that fog looks pretty much the same everywhere, and
ahem.
Papa Lima Whiskey (
talk) 16:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Support. Fog adds to the EV, per Sabine's Sunbird, and to the image itself. --
Avenue (
talk) 17:42, 7 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Support original. Beautiful. upstateNYer 01:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Oppose Whilst regular fog appears to be an integral component of the harbour
File:San francisco in fog with rays.jpg is doing a better job of illustrating the fog frankly. I really think that Golden Gate Bridge article really just needs a more standard (boring?) picture of the bridge without the fog etc. I wouldn't mind a bit more space below the bridge too.
Noodle snacks (
talk) 03:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Support 1st picture...seeing the city background gives it more perspective of location and overview. The image need not include the entire bridge in my opinion.--
MONGO 12:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC)reply
I'm just going to give voice to my concern that MONGO may have arrived here by way of canvassing, seeing that he's not a regular contributor, this is the only current nomination that he's decided to comment on, and he's a friend of Mbz1
[1].
Papa Lima Whiskey (
talk) 17:55, 8 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Honestly I myself was surprised over Mongo vote, but I wonder, if you have ever heard about
WP:AGF? What a stupid assumption to bring barnstar from 2007 and to talk about canvasing! I am more than disappointed in your comment and you.--
Mbz1 (
talk) 18:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC)reply
It is unusual for me to cast an opinion regarding images, but did land on this page after tracking Mbz1's edit history. I actually looked pretty closely at the images after downloading them and looking at them off site. I've never been to San Fran but have seen many pics of the GGB and these appear in my humble opinion to be first rate.--
MONGO 03:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Support - Very cool picture. I aspire to the skills needed to create it. BTW - Both MONGO and Mbz1 are my friends in collaboration on WP but don't hold that against Mbz1.--
Mike Cline (
talk) 19:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC)reply
And let me guess, you also just happened to pass?
Papa Lima Whiskey (
talk) 21:41, 8 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Hey, Papa Lima Whiskey, have you ever heard about so called "watch list"? It is a good idea to have one, you know. If you do not how it works, please, ping me and I will explain it to you. So, here is the sequence of events. Mike has Mongo's talk page on his watch list. I left a message at Mongo's talk page
here. Mike checked his watch list. Mike saw the message. Mike voted for the image. Is that clear?
WP:AGF--
Mbz1 (
talk) 21:49, 8 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Mbz1 - That's the second time you've had to stand up for me. Not necessary but humbling. You're explanation to PLW could have been shortened to this phrase:
Collaboration is not
WP:Canvassing.--
Mike Cline (
talk) 21:55, 8 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Oppose Lacks EV: neither a good depiction of the bridge nor of the bay.
Makeemlighter (
talk) 05:25, 9 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Oppose I'm not sure why there's so much fog discussion - even without the fog this should not pass... The background is completely blurred leaving little or no visable features of the buildings behind the bridge... Which considering this FP nom is about the Bay itself to have a blurred image isn't good... The bridge itself is out of focus to the extent you cannot see clearly the wires - just a feint blurred line... There is over exposed lights to the left of the bridge on the hill and above and slightly left-of-centre of the bridge itself... The foreground is too dark to see any detail on the hill... I appreciate fog will have some effect, especially around the bridge itself, but no excuse for a blurred fuzzy picture...
Gazhiley (
talk) 13:11, 12 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Yeah, right it is one
" blurred fuzzy picture". One should remember that the fog was all over the place. The whole bridge was in the fog, only the density of the fog was not so high above the bridge as it was below.--
Mbz1 (
talk) 17:28, 12 March 2010 (UTC)reply
