Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Cobh Panorama at Dusk.jpg

File:Cobh Panorama at Dusk.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Nov 2023 at 08:16:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Cobh Panorama at Dusk.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Cobh Panorama at Dusk.jpg

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
•  Info created, uploaded, and nominated by Podstawko  Podstawko  ●talk  08:16, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Neutral. Abstaining from support as the author.
•  Oppose The view and timing are nice but the I'm never a fan of a too long stripe format. On top, the processing looks a bit weird. I think you moved the clarity trigger quite far to the right. It strangely looks like a night and day shot at the same time. super tight framing doesn't help. - Benh (talk) 11:09, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

  The choice of the wide panorama (in Wikimedia parlance any panorama of ratio of height to width higher than 1:4) is deliberate here. The purpose was to show the entirety of the town to replace the existing waterfront image in the Wikipedia article on the subject. My pano shows that expected "entirety" of the spectacular Cobh waterfront: further to the left, there would only be a boring train station; further to the right -- dull woods with scattered houses. The image also illustrates the sloping streets to the right (east), and the imposing "upper class" buildings to the left (west) of the cathedral, illustrating the contrast. This new panorama, after being centered and put across the width of that article, works quite well as an illustration.

  Surprisingly enough, this is a sort of "day and night shot at the same time", because I was hunting for the moment where the sky is still bright, but people have already turned their lights on. I really had only a few minutes for that which caused issues in itself, as the process of taking this panorama took more than a few minutes... Also, I didn't touch the clarity slider. I never do as I don't like the effect. Changes done were moves of the histogram curves on darks and whites (and maybe not in the direction you would expect), lots of spot removals, local brightening of the cathedral, adjusting black point on in woody areas, delicate unsharp mask applied in PS.  Podstawko  ●talk  11:32, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

• There are still one or two dust spots in the clouds. As for the rest, I'm not sure how to vote, but it would be easier if you de-noise the sky in such a way as to produce a sharper picture. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:15, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

• Weak  Oppose because of that noise. I think the panoramas we've been featuring have a good deal less noise in the sky. If you de-noise the sky significantly, I'd be happy to reconsider. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:36, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

• Weak  Support Some minors CAs, but IMO OK. --XRay 💬 12:39, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support Perspective at right could be better, and minor CAs as said by XRay, but th wow factore works for me. --Sebring12Hrs (talk) 15:53, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Comment Too noisy for FP IMO.--Ermell (talk) 16:55, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks for commenting @Ermell. Could you clarify what you mean by too noisy?  Podstawko  ●talk  17:42, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

  Have a look here Ermell (talk) 23:21, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

•  Weak oppose Crop too tight at the bottom, in my view. Is it possible to bring more water reflection (and simply more water) in the composition? Also I agree with others the perspective on both sides is not optimum. The buildings are slightly leaning in -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:14, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Comment Needs a bit more room to breathe at the bottom, and the sky has too much noise. Otherwise a very good panorama. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:09, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support ★ 20:57, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support Wow-factor is sufficient for me. MartinD (talk) 09:37, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
•  Support I would add a little more water below and reduce some noise in the sky. But overall the motif and quality are outstanding. The format is extremely appropriate for the subject. It would be a shame to enter vertical blinders for showing only a section with the usual aspect ratio. --Milseburg (talk) 14:37, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
•  I withdraw my nomination. I'm withdrawing my nomination. Thank you for all the notes and votes. I am confident this panorama deserves an FP, so I'm going to work on it a bit more based on your feedback and nominate a polished version soon.  Podstawko  ●talk  09:48, 8 November 2023 (UTC)