Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Loch Lubnaig from the path to Ben Ledi, Scotland.jpg

File:Loch Lubnaig from the path to Ben Ledi, Scotland.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Feb 2019 at 18:55:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Loch Lubnaig from the path to Ben Ledi, Scotland.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Loch Lubnaig from the path to Ben Ledi, Scotland.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural#United_Kingdom
•  Info All by me. I quite enjoy a play of the sun and the fog together with different coloured areas of moss and heather. -- Podzemnik (talk) 18:55, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
•  Abstain as author. -- Podzemnik (talk) 18:55, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
•  Comment Lovely and making my homesick. I wonder if the bottom right is a bit over cooked? If you are using dehaze, for example, perhaps use a mask or gradient to not apply it to near foreground. It just looks a bit crunchy and too contrasty there. -- Colin (talk) 19:26, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Colin! I'm using only a bit of dehaze (+5) and clarity (+5) for the whole picture. I think the bottom right looks too contrasty because it's a north facing slope without much light. I applied a mask there to make it look more natural. I hope it's better. Greetings, --Podzemnik (talk) 20:35, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree that the foreground looks strange and a bit unnatural. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:54, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

You think so? Even now after I applied the mask? It's looking OK to me now. --Podzemnik (talk) 09:33, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I find that this photo looks good at 40% of its size, which is bigger than 50% of the previous version's size that that one looks good at. At those sizes, I really don't perceive a difference. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:21, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

•  Support -- Colin (talk) 20:57, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

•  Support wonderful --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 21:48, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
•  Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:55, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 22:06, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
•  Support Gorgeous, expansive scene. Pixel-level sharpness could be better but fine given the resolution. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:51, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
•  Support Very nice -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:30, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
•  Support Splendid view.--Ermell (talk) 08:47, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --Yann (talk) 11:19, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
•  Support I'm not a friend of panoramics. But this looks great for me. --Hockei (talk) 11:57, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose Imho the quality of the image does not reach FP bar. The right and left edges are very unsharp (neither the closer nor the farer parts are sharp) - with a multi-image shot this can be easily avoided. Especially the darker parts of the image look imho noisy and partly overprocessed - I guess too much clarity and too much shadow brightening. It looks if the focus is on the foreground (the stony path in the foreground) with the result that the background could be sharper. Motive, composition and light have FP potential, but imho not the technical execution --Tuxyso (talk) 18:26, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Tuxyso, I agree at pixel level it is soft in places and some of the processing has perhaps contributed to noise. However it is 105MP so if I reduce it 50% you get this 24MP image, which is very sharp, with no noise. So I wonder if the 24MP image had been nominated, would you have opposed? -- Colin (talk) 20:57, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
    • That's an everlasting discussion... I have to assess the image which is nominated here. The nominee has some technical issues which are avoidable - no unattainable requirements - especillay the sharpness at the very left and very right side and the the editing of darker parts. My very personal opinion: An FP should be a pleasure to view in a scaled version and also in full res version. --Tuxyso (talk) 22:31, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I wish you the funds to buy a high DPI monitor so that "full res" has pixels too small for you to peep. Your vote is nothing less than a request to downsize and an insult to those generous enough to donate images full size. This image is 5.3 metres across when viewed "full res" on a standard monitor. The nomination is for a JPG in the repository, not a specific-sized rendering in your browser. Commons is not a publisher. How you choose to view the image is your choice, though made somewhat awkward by the MediaWiki interface. If you choose to view magnified so large it doesn't fit in your room, and view it from 50cm, then the flaws you see are purely down to your bad viewing choices. This kind of vote is harmful to the project. Please consider that while you may choose to downsize your images so they look pixel-perfect at 100%, others do not and should not be punished for that. -- Colin (talk) 23:02, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I have been absent from COM a few years and must observe that the verbal tonality in discussions changed negatively. In the past the discussions here were very constructive and also valueing. In the current disussion I made an argument with in-detail explanatory statement and Colin repeatedly shortens it to: "Looks bad in 100%, please downscale". Again, and also for [[Ikan Kekek: I do NOT postulate to downscale the image to look better. I only argue that the technical issues which could be avoided by a better shooting technique (more precise focus point, more overapping especially at the edges) and a better post-processing. Please sustain also a deviating (my very own) opinion. There is not only one truth. --Tuxyso (talk) 22:14, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

I think that's a reasonable point of view and thank you for clarifying. Note that I haven't voted on this nomination, but have only made some comments above. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:10, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Tuxyso, the fact remains that if this image had been downsized and uploaded at 24 or 36MP you would not have noticed any sharpness or noise issues. You may have complained about other processing issues, but not those. So, some of your oppose rationale is only present because you are pixel peeping a gigantic 105MP image. You insist that "I have to assess the image which is nominated here" but the image that is nominated here can be viewed by you at any resolution you wish. Just because it is uploaded at 105MP does not mean you have to view it or review it at that size. That is your choice, and one I think that is unfair on the nominator. You also insist it must be "a pleasure...in full res version". So, while you can claim you haven't requested it be downsized, your vote is an implicit message that nominators will be punished with an oppose if they dare to nominate any image that is not perfect at 100%. The consequence of pixel peeping is that some nominators downsize to avoid these kinds of votes. And so we end up getting 6MP natural landscape images at FPC in 2019 when we should be getting 24MP+ images. Commons is poorer as a result.

I feel strongly that pixel peeping reviews harm Commons FP. See User:Colin/PixelPeeping where I noted "a 24MP image is not twice as bad as a 6MP image. It is superior in every way, except to a pixel peeper.". Sure, with better technique and better equipment and better processing, we might have a super sharp and noiseless 105MP image. But we do also have a this image that is the same one nominated here, just rendered in your browser at 24MP. That is the nominated image too, but you choose to find fault when you choose to view it magnified 2x on your monitor. -- Colin (talk) 09:09, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

•  Support per Colin. --Palauenc05 (talk) 09:19, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
•  Support Daniel Case (talk) 06:21, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 15:22, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
•  Support per Colin. --Aristeas (talk) 15:24, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --Llez (talk) 11:15, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
•  Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 19:53, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:59, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
•  Support per Colin -- Ryan Hodnett (talk) 06:05, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
•  Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 10:22, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:23, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural#United_Kingdom