Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Château Frontenac 22.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:Château Frontenac 22.jpg, not featured[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Dec 2019 at 23:50:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
Info All by -- Wilfredor (talk) 23:50, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Support Excellent and thoughtful composition. Not perfect at (very high) full resolution, but fine at lower but still acceptable res. Cmao20 (talk) 12:27, 27 November 2019 (UTC)- Support nice and useful Ezarateesteban 00:31, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
Comment - It's a really big panoramic overview, and I like that, but the grass in the foreground is pretty noisy. Could you decrease that? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:36, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
- I agree to eliminate noise on smooth surfaces but with grass its different and I tried to do it, however, I did not find a noise pattern which means that by applying a general noise reduction without a pattern you will eliminate information from image details. --Wilfredor (talk) 14:41, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
- Understood. I'll continue to look at this photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:14, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
- I agree to eliminate noise on smooth surfaces but with grass its different and I tried to do it, however, I did not find a noise pattern which means that by applying a general noise reduction without a pattern you will eliminate information from image details. --Wilfredor (talk) 14:41, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
Oppose The composition is interesting, but not enough to make up for the terrible quality. - Benh (talk) 18:01, 29 November 2019 (UTC)- Oppose It’s a very nice idea but 1. the quality is not there in spite of large pixel size, you have to downscale to 25 percent (4.3 megapixels) to make it look sharp, at 100 percent it looks hopelessly overprocessed. 2. The lighting does not appeal to me, the (dominating) foreground is too cold and shady. 3. Stitching issues in the sky, there are some vertical dark stripes. As I said, the spot and idea are fine but this image is not favourable. --Kreuzschnabel 08:08, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks Kreuz Stitching issues in the sky was an error due to the vignething of each photo. There is no way to remove it completely from the raw file because there is no present for this type of RAW file that allows this to be corrected non-manually. Thanks --Wilfredor (talk) 04:25, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
- Support I think this is worthy of FP as an example of what a mobile phone (Huawei P30 Pro) can achieve in 2019. The sensor area in this camera is 20x smaller than a FF camera. I assume it is stitched and yes there is a little banding in the sky if you look closely, though we have other FPs with this problem. If I look at this 17.5MP thumb (the largest MediaWiki will generate for me without crashing out of memory) it looks quite acceptable even to pixelpeep: I can count the steps on the scaffolding. This image was in the top 10 of WLM Canada and as Ezarate notes it is certainly more than large enough to be useful. The composition is good and the view interesting. -- Colin (talk) 17:01, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
- Wow, this is a phone photo! I didn't notice that. It's certainly the best quality I've ever seen from a phone camera (although that's in large part because it's a stitched image), and it's probably the first time I've voted in favour of a phone photo at FP. But given the high resolution the quality is good enough for me. Cmao20 (talk) 23:56, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
- Support Tomer T (talk) 23:48, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Not bad for a cell phone camera but I cannot oversee the resulting quality in comparison to ther candidates here. Only a few areas (mostly in the sun lit area) could be acceptable. I also think that the timing is not good and would have liked to see much more less area of the image in shadow (which would have probably improved the overall image quality) Poco a poco (talk) 11:45, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose per Poco; I also think the composition sabotaged itself by being so ambitious (For one thing, this is more a photo of a Quebec City cityscape dominated by the Frontenac than a photo of the Frontenac. Daniel Case (talk) 01:11, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination IMHO the photographs should be evaluated taking into account the limitations of the camera/phone censor with which it was made. I have uploaded the photograph to a maximum resolution, indirectly comments here are forcing me to downsize the image to hide noise problems like others have the usual habit of doing it on FPC with their fullframes cameras. I don't know why we have to compare a photo of a phone with a photo taken by a DSLR camera that also has a downsize applied to it. --Wilfredor (talk) 04:25, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
