Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Long freeway exposure

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Jun 2010 at 01:04:58 (UTC)

Reason

The photo brilliantly illustrates both the nighttime traffic flow on the highway that is the subject, as well as one of the effects of taking a long-term exposure of moving lights.

Articles in which this image appears

Long exposure photography, Ontario Highway 401

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Engineering and technology/Others

Creator

Kennymatic (Flickr user, CC-2.0-attribution)

• Support as nominator --ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 01:04, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support It beautifully illustrates the concept of night-time, long exposures. Greg L (talk) 01:21, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Awesome night shot of Highway 401! The long exposure really enhances the photograph, showing how busy the highway is even well into the night. Haljackey (talk) 01:24, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support A great example of long exposure photography and is well composed.Jdenm8 (talk) 02:19, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support As I did before. Cowtowner (talk) 04:47, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm confused. Wasn't this just nominated? Makeemlighter (talk) 05:11, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Me too. It was withdrawn and nominated here in less than 30 mins? And the votes here look a bit dubious... --Muhammad(talk) 06:49, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd presume that the claim to EV is now in Long exposure photography. Noodle snacks (talk) 07:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Really, Muhammad: “dubious”??? It’s just like Noodle snacks wrote, above. Read the concluding threads on the closed nomination. I wrote there that if this picture was renominated on the basis of supporting Long exposure photography, I could vote ‘support’ (a change from my original ‘oppose’ vote). The nominator withdrew it, renominated in context of the new article (with the appropriate caption), and I voted as pledged. Seeing the withdrawal, I simply wikistalked Floydian to find this nomination before it got transcluded into FP’s main page. No collusion and no forgeries; just people who were active in the withdrawal & renomination process. Greg L (talk) 14:18, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Muhammad is probably talking about Jdenm8, who had 7 contributions before supporting here. Jujutacular ^T · C 14:55, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, I noted his plural “votes”. Perhaps just a typo… Greg L (talk) 16:18, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Great EV for LE - not so sure about 401 as the method of photography does not give a full view of how busy it is - it could just be 1 or 2 cars per lane for all we know... Gazhiley (talk) 10:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The other photos show the traffic on the 401 in the day, a true indicator of its density. This only indicates that there is still traffic flow late at night. The light would also be far dimmer with only two cars per lane. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 14:30, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Still much too noisy. See this photo for a good nighttime long-exposure (already featured). Jujutacular ^T · C 14:48, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Say… that is a splendid photograph of architecture. However, its time-smeared elements aren’t nearly as pronounced and notable as in this one. It clearly adds EV at its primary use (Munich); not so much to Long exposure photography. Greg L (talk) 15:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not saying it should replace this photo in long exposure photography, I'm saying it is an example of long exposure nighttime photography that is of much higher quality. Jujutacular ^T · C 16:49, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Indeed. That photo is an outstanding long exposure nighttime photograph. It was well deserving of its FP status. Greg L (talk) 17:56, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Good EV for Long exposure photography. Pronounced effect. I would replace this picture in Ontario Highway 401, if a better replacement is available. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:02, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Too noisy. If it's going to serve as an example of a type of photography it should be technically very strong, but isn't. And it should not have been renominated as we pointed out this flaw previously. Fletcher (talk) 21:42, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gee. Not even an “IMHO” at the end of your post, Fletcher?? I do hope you will forgive those who think the noise more of a gray area than the deal-breaking matter of pure fact your opinion might lead one to believe. I also note your “Royal ‘we’ ” (as in …“as we pointed out this flaw previously”) in the previous nomination. Looking over that now-closed thread, I’m not seeing anyone else there being concerned about noise, so it appears by “we”, you mean “you.” I guess my willingness to overlook such a minor shortcoming means I may never be Charlie the Tuna material with exceedingly good taste. (*sigh*) Greg L (talk) 22:07, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Should have said as I pointed out previously, and Jujatacular pointed out above. Fletcher (talk) 23:07, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Fletcher and Juju. upstateNYer 02:31, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, don't like the composition. Too tight at the top (or crop off more), cropped lamppost at the bottom. Also the withdraw/renominate procedure is a bit fishy. --Dschwen 17:22, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Nope... just a withdrawl and renomination, but you're welcome to look through the histories and logs and do some sleuth work if you think there is a big coverup here. The initial nomination was far too underway to add something to it, and several editors felt that the picture was worthy, but that its usage did not produce the highest EV. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 17:47, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Ok, but all that changed since the nomination-reset is the inclusion in Long Exposure Photography. Sorry, I'm just not in love with this pic :-(. --Dschwen 20:40, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per Dschwen. The composition is below par for something that's as common as long exposure of motorways. These photos should be of a very high standard for it to be FP as it is easily reproducible. --antilived^{T | C | G} 02:49, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Although not a scholar of photography, I consider this an appealing image.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Nice shot, but I´m not comfortable with the image noise. - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 00:24, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --NauticaShades 00:20, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]