Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Breil-Brigels, Lag da Breil- Flem. 23-09-2022. (actm.) 11.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:Breil-Brigels, Lag da Breil- Flem. 23-09-2022. (actm.) 11.jpg, featured[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Oct 2023 at 05:05:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural/Switzerland#Grisons_(Graubünden)
- Info Breil-Brigels Outflow of river Flem in Lag da Breil
All by -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:05, 14 October 2023 (UTC) - Support -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:05, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
- Comment Technical quality - look at the rocks - not great. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:34, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you for your comment. alternate version added.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:46, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
- Support Like this one more than the other. -- -donald- (talk) 06:24, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- Support +1 -- Radomianin (talk) 06:29, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- Support --XRay 💬 17:30, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- Support ★ 19:29, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:34, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose Very good but not quite an FP to me because of the graininess I think Charles was reacting to. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:39, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
Weak supportGood for me, but it would be even better when the noise in the shadows could be reduced. --Aristeas (talk) 14:10, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
- Done. Noise reduction in the shadow parts. Thanks for your reviews.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:00, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
- Comment Hi Agnes, I took the liberty of de-noising the photo a bit, especially in the shadowy parts of the image, as well as gently increasing the sharpness. But in the meantime you have already made a new version. This one is already a bit better, but still quite noisy in the dark sections. So feel free to take a closer look at my edit and use it if you like. You can find the photo under this link. I think an edit summary like
Denoised with the help of User:Radomianin
is okay and appropriate according to the Commons guidelines. Best, -- Radomianin (talk) 17:28, 17 October 2023 (UTC)- Comment Thank you very much, Agnes and Radomianin, for your efforts! Both new versions look better. If I had the choice, I think Radomianin’s version is even better, so I would follow his offer ;–). But it’s your photo, Agnes, and it’s your choice which version you prefer. Best, --Aristeas (talk) 18:12, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
- New version Dear reviewers @Agnes Monkelbaan, -donald-, XRay, ArionStar, Kiril Simeonovski, Ikan Kekek, and Aristeas: At the request of the author on my talk page, I have updated the file. Changes: Denoised the dark areas as much as possible and applied a gentle sharpening. However, some basic graininess remained. More denoising would have made the image much too smooth and would have destroyed the details. Best, -- Radomianin (talk) 18:50, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
- Comment Thank you very much, Agnes and Radomianin, for your efforts! Both new versions look better. If I had the choice, I think Radomianin’s version is even better, so I would follow his offer ;–). But it’s your photo, Agnes, and it’s your choice which version you prefer. Best, --Aristeas (talk) 18:12, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
- Comment Hi Agnes, I took the liberty of de-noising the photo a bit, especially in the shadowy parts of the image, as well as gently increasing the sharpness. But in the meantime you have already made a new version. This one is already a bit better, but still quite noisy in the dark sections. So feel free to take a closer look at my edit and use it if you like. You can find the photo under this link. I think an edit summary like
- Radomianin, Thank you very much for this.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:01, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
- Done. Noise reduction in the shadow parts. Thanks for your reviews.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:00, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
- full Support now; thank you both again! --Aristeas (talk) 06:59, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
- Support --imehling (talk) 16:10, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose Nice but not outstanding IMHO. Waterfalls are cool but the top crop and water flow itself is not special to me, sorry Poco a poco (talk) 20:45, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose Nothing special for FP. ~Moheen (keep talking) 15:50, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
* Oppose OK for QI but nothing really special for FP. -- Karelj (talk) 11:21, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- Comment The voting period ended already at 05:05 a.m. (UTC), therefore the last added vote at 11:21 a.m. (UTC) is invalid. -- Radomianin (talk) 13:30, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
Alternative f/11[edit]
- Support --Llez (talk) 16:11, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose Grainier than the other version. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:39, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Ikan. ~Moheen (keep talking) 15:50, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
* Oppose OK for QI but nothing really special for FP. -- Karelj (talk) 11:19, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- Comment The voting period ended already at 05:05 a.m. (UTC), therefore the last added vote at 11:19 a.m. (UTC) is invalid. -- Radomianin (talk) 13:30, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 8 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- Radomianin (talk) 13:42, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural/Switzerland#Grisons_(Graubünden)
The chosen alternative is: File:Breil-Brigels, Lag da Breil- Flem. 23-09-2022. (actm.) 11.jpg