Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Amstel

Amstel, Amsterdam, Netherlands

**Original** - The river Amstel is the most important body of water flowing through Amsterdam, the Dutch capital. Visible are some of Amsterdam's most important landmarks located adjacent to the river in this panorama, such as the Magere Brug, Carre Theatre, Amstel Hotel and Rembrandt Tower.

Reason: It has enough EV and the quality is sufficient to justify a FP status. A recent nomination inspired me to put this one up for here.
Articles in which this image appears: Amstel and Magere Brug
Creator: Massimo Catarinella

Support as nominator --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 20:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support lovely pic, can't see any obvious defects. A couple of the boats sem very low in the water though - especially the small one to our left of the open-able part of the bridge - couple in dark blue and purple tops... Almost looks like they're sinking! Gazhiley (talk) 11:41, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the latter can be explained by two things. The first being that this picture was shot from a non-raised pier. Further more, there was a gusty wind blowing, which created some waves. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 00:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't notice it on the first viewing, but I'm pretty sure the 'boats low in the water' that Gizhiley refers to is a stitching fault. Well, one boat in particular anyway. The little boat centre-right (with a red dot on the motor) is sitting extremely low in the water - in fact, it looks like the guy in the back is dragging his butt in the water. ;-) And the boat seems to have some slight ghosting artifacts and inconsistent colour and texture at the back. It takes an eagle eye to spot the faults (assuming I'm even right - could you check the RAW file to confirm?) so it isn't a big deal, but probably should be corrected if possible. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 17:23, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the RAW file for you, but it really isn't a stitching error... I can make a screenshot. if you would like me to do so. You are right though. If there is a flaw in the panorama, it should be fixed. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 17:16, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, if you say so, I believe you! But it still does look rather strange, and I don't think waves would explain it, as they look too small and choppy. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 20:07, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd prefer a crop that didn't have as much empty water at the bottom. Time3000 (talk) 12:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- FWIW, I was going to suggest the same thing until I had a read of the nomination. Noodle snacks (talk) 05:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support. I'd prefer to not have the far left side cropped at the top, and the lighting could be slightly better (looks slightly warm tinted, especially the sky which is either fairly hazy or not quite the right colour), but otherwise very nice. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 14:12, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These pictures were taken about six months ago during summer. They have been shot during the period the sun was setting, so this might explain the warmer colours. I've just rechecked the RAW-files and I can't improve the crop in the upper left corner, but I do agree with you. It should be more spacious. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 00:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support Holding back from full support because of the framing: would prefer less foreground and more sky. Otherwise fine. Durova³⁹¹ 19:53, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can always crop of part of the bottom, if you would like me to do so. I think the foreground adds up to the EV though. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 19:03, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's more that the view would feel brighter and more open with a bit more sky at top. Looks like it'll pass though. Durova⁴⁰¹ 17:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support: GerardM (talk) 23:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC) It is the size of the water that makes this bridge special.. Please leave the amount of water as it is because this is what makes the "magere brug" so special[reply]
- FYI, it's customary to sign the end of your comments, rather than the start. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 23:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support per Diliff, Durova and others. --jjron (talk) 07:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I think that, like Diliff's recent Thames FP, the water here is important. I agree about the crop at the top left, but it isn't enough to prevent full support. This is a good capture of the activity on the river, and especially nice to see the bridge in the process of being raised/lowered. Maedin\^talk 07:32, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Amstel.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 21:26, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]