Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:20171004 UWCL SKN-MCW StPoelten 850 1369.jpg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

File:20171004 UWCL SKN-MCW StPoelten 850 1369.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jan 2018 at 14:10:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
 Comment The image has been QI'd with the exact same arguments as from Martin and I like the image for those very same reasons. --Granada (talk) 22:26, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Per Peulle. Looks like overdone NR (and selective on top of that, it would explain the "yellow text on blue shorts"). - Benh (talk) 18:02, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
     Comment Uploaded a new version! --Granada (talk) 18:10, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Unless cache issue, I don't see much (any?) improvement. - Benh (talk) 18:53, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I've reduced sharpening to nearly zero. Now it's a cropped sooc-jpeg. --Granada (talk) 19:00, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Distracting backgroud. Moreover blurry a little bit. — Draceane talkcontrib. 21:55, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment - One thing that bugs me enough for me not to vote to support is the way the white patch on the uniform of the otherwise red-shirted man visible over the shoulder of the woman in the yellow and blue uniform seems to stand out in disproportion to its importance. The moment you've captured is exciting, and I'm willing to overlook a bit of distraction from the presence of part of a player who's partly cropped out on the right side, because that's simply normal on soccer fields during games, but there are a few relatively small things in the background that stand out and bug me. Another one is that piece of green between the legs of the player on the right, and there's also a little bit of white on the right leg of the white and red uniformed man in the middle between the two others. These little things bug me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:33, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
     Comment Thank you for your comment. I would have loved to see this level of arguing in the discussion of this image: File:London Bees v Millwall Lionesses, 15 April 2017 (062) (cropped).jpg (there's not even a ball near her ...) and in general when looking at the images here: Commons:Featured_pictures/Sports#Team_sports. There are not a lot of images in total and a lot of them where you could argue with a distracting background, blurriness, being downscaled to hide blurriness and other things. My point is not to remove those images from FP but to review sports images under different aspects than landscape photography. (Yes, I usually know not to disturb, sorry about that) --Granada (talk) 07:30, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're not disturbing; you're expressing a perfectly reasonable opinion and we're having a discussion. I notice I didn't vote on the picture you linked, and I think that's probably because, although I like the composition, there are similar kinds of small things that would have bugged me at about 300% of full screen size. It's possible that my standards for sports photography are unreasonably high, but I don't think I can make myself feel wowed or make myself unbugged by the kinds of small things I mentioned above. As a general point, I'm absolutely in full agreement with you that any kind of action shot has to be judged differently than a shot of a more or less static view, and I absolutely won't vote to oppose a feature for this photo, but I thought I'd let you know why I haven't felt able to support it, either. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:02, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment Don't be discouraged - standards are high here. Most of my FP noms are declined.--Peulle (talk) 01:29, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 CommentJust seen this nomination and for what it is worth, I'd have supported. Granada is right that many existing sports photo FPs have same "flaws" as have been pointed out here. I think there is a bit too much noise reduction applied and don't understand why the new version was uploaded with "less sharpening" when sharpening wasn't the issue (though sharpening without a mask may increase noise in out-of-focus areas, which would encourage you to add more NR to combat it). But this is a 15MP image taken at 300mm f/2.8 and I don't think there are many folk on Commons who could take a better one -- the DoF here is tiny and quite a challenge to get the people sharp. Most commercial sport photos we see are <2MP. Looking at this full screen, the players pop out in 3D, which is great. -- Colin (talk) 15:56, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment@Colin: Withdrew my withdrawal
 CommentThe D850 was still quite new to me on that day and I shot in jpeg with the in-camera noise reduction set to standard and no in-camera sharpening at all so I can't do anything about the NR. But all in all I am quite satisfied with this setting because when shooting RAW (e.g. during the hymn ceremonies for taking portrait shots) and working with them in post I often end up with just about the same amount of NR. The original version was sharpened with around 93% of masking in Lightroom, but that still exposed some weird "wobbly blur" around the number 19 of Julia Tabotta which I did not notice at first. --Granada (talk) 16:26, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 7 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--PumpkinSky talk 22:47, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:20171004_UWCL_SKN-MCW_StPoelten_850_1369.jpg&oldid=276527367"