Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:1 moraine lake pano 2019.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:1 moraine lake pano 2019.jpg, not featured
[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2020 at 06:09:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Canada#Alberta
Info created by Chensiyuan - uploaded by Chensiyuan - nominated by Junior Jumper -- Junior Jumper (formerly Tæ) 06:09, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Support -- Junior Jumper (formerly Tæ) 06:09, 15 February 2020 (UTC)- Support Impressive scenery. But please add {{Panorama}} in your file page -- Basile Morin (talk) 06:23, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Done--Junior Jumper (formerly Tæ) 06:59, 15 February 2020 (UTC)- Support An impressive scenery, indeed, and in this case I even like the people in the foreground: It is nice to see how they photograph (almost) the same scenery we are looking at, and they remind me of the staffage people once added by painters to give life to their landscape paintings. --Aristeas (talk) 10:38, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
- Changing to
Oppose on second thought after reading comments below. --Cart (talk) 21:27, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
- Changing to
- Support --Fischer.H (talk) 16:23, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Comment - Supporting vote crossed out per the remarks below. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:44, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose Big and hight quality Excellent panoramic, however, noise pattern generated by excessive and widespread use of the sharpness filter. The noise generated by high ISO is acceptable and in many cases easy to fix because it uses a pattern recognizable by the artificial intelligence of some applications, but this other noise is destructive and a bad practice in the development process. Sharpening increases image contrast and if you find that highlights or shadows are clipped after you sharpen, use the layer blending controls (if you sharpen a separate layer on Photoshop) to prevent sharpening in highlights and shadows and reduce image noise before sharpening so that you don’t intensify the noise. It is always better to upload the original image first without applying any noise or clarity correction filter and then upload another version to commons --Wilfredor (talk) 17:56, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
- Regretful oppose per Wilfredo, though I'd be open to reconsideration if the image were reprocessed the way he suggests and it had a positive effect. Daniel Case (talk) 18:55, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Wilfredor. It's very high resolution and good other than this, but the flaw of the noise pattern is definitely a mistake in processing. Additionally, I feel that whenever anyone sees a picture of Banff National Park it tends to be some variation on this exact view. That's not just a problem on Commons - if you key in Banff National Park into Google Images, the entire top row of search results are variations on this shot. I know it's a very scenic spot but I'd like to see more diversity and completely different compositions. The park is more than 2000 square miles in size, I think we can do better than just having the view from the same place time and again. Cmao20 (talk) 20:46, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
- Support Given the high resolution (119 MP), we can afford to be a bit lenient on pixel-level quality. If we scale down 50%, the noise issue is no longer significant enough to prevent FP IMO. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:30, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
- King of In the same way applying a downsizing the noise would disappear, however, it would also be a bad practice to correct problems because the problem here is not the photo itself but the result of a wrong developing process. If we have this opportunity to improve technically to upload pictures with the best possible quality, why not do it?. It is certainly not a requirement to be FP, but it would be very desirable. --Wilfredor (talk) 04:36, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
- Weak Oppose Per above and I find the tourists with those shrill colors disturbing. On the other side I find the scene and stitching quality very good Poco a poco (talk) 09:46, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Poco. -- -donald- (talk) 07:03, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose High noise, visible CAs, and mostly in shadow --Uoaei1 (talk) 11:38, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose per others. --Milseburg (talk) 19:47, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 8 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. //Eatcha (talk) 13:55, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
