Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Cu Đê River, Da Nang.jpg

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

File:Cu Đê River, Da Nang.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Apr 2015 at 09:09:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Cu Đê River, Da Nang
  •  Oppose Lighting is not bad but not enough going on in the composition. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:04, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose An excellent composition and lighting somehow spoiled by poor image quality. Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:01, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Was it stitched in-camera on with PC? Are there raw source files or JPG? It is a very high-resolution image, so I'm happy to review after downsizing on my PC. I tried reducing the image to 6MP and it is wonderfully sharp and mostly noise-free at that size, except for bottom left. I think the scene and composition are good enough it is worth trying to improve the quality. Christopher if you have raw sources, I'd be happy to see if I can improve it (I wouldn't publish them without your permission -- I'd send any results back to you). Email me if you want to try this. -- Colin (talk) 11:12, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey Colin, thanks for your offer. To be honest, I'm quite amazed by the comments saying that my panoramics have a poor quality—if instead I'd provide an image at 50% of the size, probably no one would say a such thing and the resulting image would still contain 13 Mpx, way above the requirements for FP. Sounds like an easy fix, doesn't it?
As for the RAWs, I wouldn't mind sending them to you if I could but the stich is made of 8 images of 33.4 MB each, for a total over 250 MB, when my internet connection in Vietnam already struggled with uploading the mere 24 MB of this current image. Also, I did play around with the noise reduction/sharpening settings of Lightroom but I ended up preferring the original version and judged this noise fair enough for the resolution. Note that this has been taken at ISO 400 with a Fuji X100S, known to do pretty well with higher ISOs, but the light was low at that time and the original RAWs are quite dark, so that might explain it. Maybe I should have cranked the ISOs rather than boosting the luminosity in Lightroom?
Anyhow, these FP critics are truly getting more and more disappointing over time—I think I'll just reupload a smaller resolution to prove my point and stick to that with the future ones. That'll make my panoramics more FP-proof and easier to upload, double win!
Christopher Crouzet (talk) 12:03, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you have pushed the exposure/lighting which has exposed the noise too much. But I'm in no rush so I suggest we can just wait till you get better internet access and upload to DropBox or similar if you want to. I suspect even a 50% reduction wouldn't satisfy the pixel-peepers and it really does look like you've not optimised the noise reduction. Let me know if/when you are able to do this. -- Colin (talk) 23:42, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Colin: OK, I was unaware of that. But I still have an issue with the lighting. And it doesn't look like my !vote changed the outcome. Daniel Case (talk) 18:49, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /-- Christian Ferrer 18:06, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Panoramas
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Cu_Đê_River,_Da_Nang.jpg&oldid=315276902"