Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:20100820 Spinalonga island Crete Panorama.jpg

File:20100820 Spinalonga island Crete Panorama.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Oct 2010 at 21:28:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:20100820 Spinalonga island Crete Panorama.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:20100820 Spinalonga island Crete Panorama.jpg

16112

2058

224

489

19351

3057

you can see the noise before and after noise reduction looking the details of this boat. Ggia 16:00, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

•  Info created by ggia - uploaded by ggia - nominated by ggia -- Ggia (talk) 21:28, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
•  Support -- Ggia (talk) 21:28, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
•  Neutral Really very nice picture, but unfortunately the sky is very noisy. -- MJJR (talk) 21:45, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
•  Support A little, but nothing significant. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:56, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

 Comment just to mention that the resolution of this image is 18.372 × 2.790 = 51.257.880 (around 50 megapixels). Looking to this image ie. 50% of the original size you don't see much noise. Ggia (talk) 22:11, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

•  Neutral the grain and gradient in the sky are removable. consider uploading an edit. be aware that displaying an image is not the only form of usage. especially if it gets to printing, noise is quite a pain. regards, --Peter Weis (talk) 00:37, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

 Question how the noise in the sky can be removed? Ggia (talk) 07:14, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

 Comment depends on your software. i use photoshop and a noise plugin. photoshop itself comes along with a sufficient method of noise reduction, but this plugin has proven better quality and usability. if you don't have the technical requirements to perform noise reduction, feel free to drop a line - i can take care of it. regards, --Peter Weis (talk) 07:31, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

 Comment thanks for the comment.. I tried neatimage.. but exif information disappeared.. the new version is updated but has half size from the original one.. Ggia (talk) 08:22, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

 Comment noise reduction most not be used on the whole image in your case. try to apply a layer mask, keeping the rest of the image unharmed. details won't get lost in non-sky areas. metadata can be reapplied: w:Exchangeable image file format#Viewing and editing Exif data or as an alternative use Template:Photo Information --Peter Weis (talk) 09:45, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

 Comment I tried once more to reduce the noise from the sky appling a mask there. The image is updated. Ggia (talk) 15:59, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

 Comment severe change. the still obvious gradient is very distracting. please reconsider working on it as well. dunno whether this has to do with the light situation on the set, the specs of your equip or anything else. PETER WEIS TALK 22:15, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

•  Oppose for now. The image is underexposed. Try to correct brightness and constrast and you will see how it will become more vivid (yes, I did try). Also, the composition would benefit from cropping out the headland at right. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:44, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose poor white balance, quality imo not good enough --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 13:43, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

 Comment I uploaded a new version, with much more improvements. This image is made from the beginning directly from raw image files. The sky has no obvious gradient or noise (thanks to the comment by Peter Weis and the very good advices about denoising filter - mask - I did't know before how to remove noise from sky). The white balance I think is better now and natural (thanks to the comment by kaʁstn). The colors are more vivid, the sea is more bright and the whole image is cropped a little bit in the right (thanks to the comment by Alvesgaspar). Ggia (talk) 15:24, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

 Comment if you see something wrong please add a note in the image. Ggia (talk) 15:25, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

•  Comment The image is still underexposed, in my opinion. What I meant with the headland at right was to remove it all! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:50, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

 Comment thanks for the comment.. did you try to refresh you browser.. probably you have the old version from the cache and not the new version.. In my screen it doesn't look underexposed.. I think the headland in the right part of the image is balanced with the left part (see and land). Of-course a new cropped version of this image if you want to create/suggest.. is also welcome.. Fell free to update the image if you want. Ggia (talk) 16:40, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

 Comment I re-uploader the image with more bright colors. Ggia (talk) 15:27, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

•  Support now, though there is an obvious geometric distortion at left (check the posts). But you have time to make the necessary corrections... Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:23, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
•  Support --Cayambe (talk) 09:36, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 1 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:51, 14 October 2010 (UTC)