Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Essaouira Atlantic.jpg

File:Essaouira Atlantic.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Mar 2017 at 16:11:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Essaouira Atlantic.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Essaouira Atlantic.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
•  Info Morocco, Essaouira. Created, uploaded and nominated by Sergey Pesterev -- Sergey Pesterev (talk) 16:11, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- Sergey Pesterev (talk) 16:11, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Support This is making me feel like flying with the birds along the shore, something not many images are able to do. The warm light, the waves, rocks and the village are all great elements that taken together make this truly special. Congratulations. – Lucas^T 16:29, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose Nice colors and composition to be sure, but there's a fair amount of noise in the sea and rocks, the lighter buildings in the city are a little overexposed, and those near the right edge are visibly leaning in that direction. Daniel Case (talk) 18:40, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Daniel Case, I'm curious on your opinion about noise. Even the best cameras have inherent noise at base ISO, shadows contain even more and post processing noise reduction can degrade details. Lighting can be challenging and just requiring higher ISOs or raising shadows because of the limited dynamic range of the camera. I agree that FPs should have best possible quality, but there are technical and practical limits. Would you prefer noise free images with lost details over ones with visible noise? Just curious. – Lucas^T 18:49, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

@Lucasbosch: I know other people ding me about being too sensitive about this, but I'm not the only one. We have had similar pictures to this nominated here without as much noise, is all I'm saying. Daniel Case (talk) 19:00, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

•  Comment - The noise bothers me, too, in one place in particular: The closer waves. To me, the noise smudges and distorts the details of the waves. I'd like to see what this photo looks like with some noise reduction in the water. I love how this photo completely teems with shore birds flying in the sky near and far, as opposed to the photos which on QI get demands to remove bird life from the air. I accept the motion blur from flight, but I'd like to see the waves more nearly as they actually looked. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:18, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Makes me feel like I'm flying with the birds. I don't think pixel peeping is helpful for this kind of subject - if it was architecture or something I'd be more picky. -- Thennicke (talk) 08:22, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Support per Thennicke --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:21, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose I don't like the blurred bird flying away in the foreground. Charles (talk) 12:52, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Charles, could you please make a note where it is? I can't find any significantly blurred bird. – Lucas^T 17:44, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

You can't? That explains the support vote. Now I'm really worried about your eyesight. Charles (talk) 18:17, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

My eyesight is fine, I just assumed you meant a bird with much more motion blur. – Lucas^T 18:26, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

•  Oppose Per Charles. --Basotxerri (talk) 16:49, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Very nice. The birds are not the subject. --Selbymay (talk) 15:33, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per Daniel. lNeverCry 07:38, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:43, 12 March 2017 (UTC)