Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Mont Saint-Michel - BeBo86.JPG

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

File:Mont Saint-Michel - BeBo86.JPG[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Aug 2014 at 15:41:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Le Mont Saint-Michel, Basse-Normandie, France
  •  Info created by BeBo86 - uploaded by BeBo86 - nominated by BeBo86 -- BeBo86 (talk) 15:41, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- BeBo86 (talk) 15:41, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose The light is quite good, and I like the compositional aspect of the curved road leading to Mont Saint-Michel. However, I think the crop is a little too tight and the image appears a little soft in focus, especially on the buildings closer to the littoral water and at the edges of the photo. The FP bar for this type of photos is just a little larger in my opinion. I had a look at the file page, which was over-categorized. I believe I have fixed that, and also added a few categories of relevance. Still a good photo, but not quite FP for me, sorry. --Slaunger (talk) 18:15, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- Dman41689 (talk) 06:08, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Info @Slaunger: - yes you are right, the building close to the littoral tower is a pity. However, I did not want to use higher f-stop, because as a result exposure time would have been extended -> this was a no-go, because it was quite windy and my tripod was not as stable as it should have been ;-) But I think the details of the main subject - the abbey - are well focused. Thanks for helping with categories!!!
  •  Oppose. I don't think the white balance is set correctly, it seems too greeny yellow tinted to me. The middle is reasonably sharp but it becomes quite soft around the edges. There would be no benefit in using a smaller aperture (higher f-stop) as it would have just made the image less sharp. Most lenses are sharpest at around f/8 and start to become diffraction limited from f/11 onwards (with an APS-C sensor such as the NEX-5N's). I think the issue with the softness is primarily down to the lens and not the settings. Diliff (talk) 10:41, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment @Diliff: is downsampling an option? BeBo86 (talk) 11:06, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well it's an option but not a good one because it doesn't fix the problem, it just hides it. I know we can sometimes be critical of an image's sharpness at 100% and be less critical of a downsampled image that has the same real level of detail, but I don't think that downsampling is the right way to think about the problem. Diliff (talk) 11:58, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree. That's why I did no downsampling. I can not change the behavior of my lenses. If 1000€ equipment is not sufficient for FP (at least in this case) I have to live with that ;-) BeBo86 (talk) 12:14, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree with the comments of Diliff. Don't go down the downsampling path - it does not lead to real improvements, but often loss of information. --Slaunger (talk) 17:40, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Downsampling does not necessarily yield loss of information, as most of the data in picture is made up from interpolation (which is why Slaunger said "often loss", but even this is exaggerated IMO). Moderate downsampling probably won't remove actual data in many many cases. Anyone familiar with image or signal processing to help sort this out? In any way, I don't think it solves the pb either. If someone judges an image by its sharpness when viewed at 100%, then she/he is the problem. - Benh (talk) 09:49, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm not going to go off-topic (again) in detail on this but I disagree with Benh. The complex "interpolation" involved in Bayer-sensor demosaicing does not mean downsizing is a "no loss" image improvement technique. And photography isn't a data capture activity anyway (consider bokeh, or the pleasing grain in certain b&w films). -- Colin (talk) 09:54, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Info Slaunger, Diliff, Benh, Lauro Sirgado thank you all for your comments. I took everything into consideration and decided to upload another version with better sharpness✓ Done, improved white balance✓ Done, wider crop✓ Done and (slight) perspective correction. Hope you like it (even if there is a shade in the foreground) :-) BeBo86 (talk) 15:15, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Comment As I have also commented on your talk page, I do not think it is a good idea to introduce a completely new image in the same nomination. Dman41689 has voted support, but that is for an entirely different image, and that is very confusing. Therefore if you think your original version will not pass the review, you should rather upload your new candidate under a new file name, revert the replacement in this file, and then withdraw this nomination. Once you have withdrawn you are allowed to nominate the new picture and start out fresh. At the same time you will also comply with our policy Commons:Overwriting existing files. It is of course great if you have found the feedback contsructive and that this has given rise to the introduction of another candidate, which addresses the issues raised. --Slaunger (talk) 20:52, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I withdraw my nomination  BeBo86 (talk) 08:38, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative[edit]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Mont_Saint-Michel_-_BeBo86.JPG&oldid=132608260"