Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Sydney Harbour Bridge

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sydney Harbour Bridge[edit]

A view of Sydney Harbour, with the Sydney Opera House on the left, the central business district in the image centre and Sydney Harbour Bridge on the right

Gorgeous photo, beautiful colours and high resolution

  • Nominate and support. - chowells 05:48, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Oh. My. Crap..... unequivocally stunning in every possible respect. --Deglr6328 06:36, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would really like to see Diliff comment on the images he's uploaded. Either how he took them, or if he is a professional or what. Its not that I have any reason to suspect that the images aren't really PD and from him, its just that they are all [1] of such[2] unbelieveably[3], shockingly[4] high quality[5] and [6] so positively enchanting.....I'd just like to hear from the person himself. I've not seen anything quite like this here before. --Deglr6328 00:37, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Truly amazing photograph. Mind-blowing. -Branddobbe 06:55, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Holy crap! How sharp and well exposed! And what a lack of noise! It almost looks like it was taken with EOS 1DS. Not to mention that it's just plain beautiful.PiccoloNamek 08:42, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Feel free to include my support once voting starts. Stunning image. - Mgm|(talk) 09:26, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Incredible night shot. Phils 14:12, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Great pic. With a great lens for this kind of photography on of those that renders light spots as stars, I wish to have some technical datas. Ericd 14:26, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Holy s&!t that is one beautiful pic(from a photographer's point of view) Richardkselby 20:09, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey guys. Thanks for all the nice words. :) Well, to answer a few of the questions, I'm a strictly amateur photographer from Melbourne, Australia who just enjoys providing high quality photos for as many wikipedia articles as I can. The photo of the Sydney Harbour Bridge was taken with a Canon 10D and 17-40mm f/4 lens, stopped down to around f/8 or so from memory, and is the result the stitching of around 10 images that were taken in portrait format, to maximise the angle of view. So that hopefully explains the detail that I was able to achieve! Diliff 06:01, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • And with that, the last of my qestions are answered! :) Your images are easily on par with some of the best professional work out there. --Deglr6328 07:19, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fantastic sharpness and color. The long exposure on the water looks nice. I think (in reference to Ericd's comments) that the star effect is done by a filter. Diliff? Anyway really good work. --Fir0002 09:32, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks. Actually the star effect is usually, but not always, the result of a stopped down aperture that is not perfectly circular. I am not entirely sure why the 17-40mm results in a 10 pointed star, as it only has a 7 blade aperture, but it does :) Diliff 11:06, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • The number of aperture blades has a influence on bokeh but I don't think it has have any influence on the "stars". Ericd 17:17, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • You could be right, I tried to do some research to confirm it but couldn't find anything specifically. Frrom my experience, though, generally the number of aperture blades is the number of points on the stars (eg my 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 has 6 blades and gives 6 pointed stars. It makes sense too, since inperfections in the 'circularity' of the aperture (at the point where the blades meet the incoming light) would let points of light pass through which would then spread at a particular angle (the specific angle would depend on what the aperture itself was). And that matches my observations. The tighter the aperture, the more acute the angle of the dispersion of each arm of the star eminating from the source of light. :) So while I have no evidence or proof, thats how I've always understood it. I'll see if I can find out more since I'm curious now! Diliff 00:12, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • For those who are curious, here is the explanation from a thread on www.dpreview.com [7]. A lens focuses light from a circular aperture into a point spread function. A point spread function IS the Fourier transform of a circular aperture. So, in effect, the process of focusing light is to take the Fourier transform of the incident wave function of light with respect to the linear aperture. The star effect (spikes) is what happens when the aperture is noncircular, or when the aperture is partially opaqued (like the spider vanes in reflecting telescopes). When the aperture is opaqued accross the aperture, the Fourier transform creates spikes at +90 degrees to the aperture blade and at -90 degrees to the aperture blade. When an aperture is opaqued at the edge, the fourier transform creataes a single spike rather reminisent of 'flare' from one side of a point-like object. When there are an odd number of blades evenly spaced around the aperture, there are twice as many spikes as there are blades. When there are an even number of blades around an aperture there are still twice as many spikes, but pairs of them line up, so you see the number of spikes equals the number of blades.. Simple, no? ;) Diliff 00:20, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Utterly spectacular - please go out into the world immediately, take pictures of everything encyclopedic you can find and upload them into Wikipedia. --bodnotbod 17:28, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Holy f***. Um. Wow.—encephalon 01:42, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I echo the sentiments of my fellow editors, including the expletives :) Support. Enochlau 03:33, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. If you went ahead and printed posters of this shot, I'm sure you can sell millions to Sydney tourists. But I want 10% for the idea. CapeCodEph 05:11, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- Wow... TomStar81 05:15, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, words really cannot describe this image. Phoenix2 00:29, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • well here it goes support Richardkselby 00:32, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Glaurung 06:36, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Totally SupportPiccoloNamek 07:00, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and concur completely with everything that has been said here. Raven4x4x 07:07, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Genuflect Support. First time I've ever been speechless ~ Veledan • Talk + new 22:53, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Cooooooooooooool. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 03:43, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - spectaculat view JoJan 19:34, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I've never seen this angle before--including the Opera House in the background and to the side like that; the angle alone makes it work. But the color is outstanding too. Unschool 18:15, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Holy cow!!! So much goodness in one image! Ryan Norton T | @ | C 21:02, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Looks like something from an expensive postcard. --AllyUnion (talk) 21:15, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Definite must! --Hohohob 08:41, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Superb addition to FP. EZG 10:46, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose non-dynamic, boring and colorless! Broken S 19:23, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • You can't be serious, I'm colorblind and the colors jump out at me! If there's one thing the image isn't, its colorless.--Deglr6328 19:58, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was joking actually, I like it quite a lot. (I suppose I should have made my html comment more visible) Broken S 20:01, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • In that case could you please change your oppose to a support. Raven4x4x 05:34, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Bah, it's in a comment in the source code. We can assume he's supporting... doesn't really matter though, I think this picture's going through :) Enochlau 23:57, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • Yeah, I know that. It's just me wanting everything to be perfect, as usual :) Raven4x4x 08:58, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um, the flags on the bridge are blurred. Um, who cares. Support. --Spangineer (háblame) 01:46, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. We've previously had several FPCs on Sydney Harbour Bridge - this one takes the crown. Perhaps more a picture of Sydney Harbour than just the bridge, but then it illustrates Sydney nicely too. -- Solipsist 18:44, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - looks great. --Loopy 04:27, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - spectacular. --Msoos 13:48, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - What everyone else said. --Haon 15:46, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support See comment above --Fir0002 02:13, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This deserves to be more than a Featured Picture. (That means Support, by the way.) Titoxd(?!?) 05:33, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Sydney Harbour Bridge night.jpg in probably the most popular nomination I've ever seen here. Not without good reason, I might add. Raven4x4x 06:08, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Incredible. Best photograph I've ever seen in my life. Janipewter 01:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Sydney_Harbour_Bridge&oldid=1138153506"