Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:New Road Zanskar Sumdo Lahaul Oct20 D72 18201.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:New Road Zanskar Sumdo Lahaul Oct20 D72 18201.jpg[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jul 2022 at 11:18:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Other
Info created and uploaded by Timothy Gonsalves - nominated by UnpetitproleX (Talk) 11:18, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Support -- UnpetitproleX (Talk) 11:18, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Oppose This scene could be an FP, but in this one the light is just too harsh. Daniel Case (talk) 16:55, 5 July 2022 (UTC)- Oppose Not a bad composition indeed, but the harsh light mentioned by Daniel spoils it, plus some overexposure leading to washed-out and blueish colours. This might be saved in postprocessing. After five minutes with the JPG in GIMP, I came up with this here (downscaled to ⅓ without losing much detail), but that work should be done from the raw file of course. Furthermore, there’s sharpness. The focus is on the very foreground, on the bottom edge (why?) which is clearly not a winning point, and defocused scenery cannot be sharpened by software. No, never. --Kreuzschnabel 17:39, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Question Is someone trying to offer the other version as an alternate? I would vote for it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:17, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Please don’t, at least not yet :) my suggestion is meant to be an example to outline what I meant by overexposure and washed-out colours. It has been done from the JPG as 2nd generation (so artifacts are building up) instead of the raw file, and considerably downscaled (to show the poor detail in the nomination – 24 mpix downscaled into 2⅔ mpix with no loss to speak of). If the raw file is still with us, I’d like to have a try on it, but it won’t help the sharpness issue. I would oppose as well I’m afraid. --Kreuzschnabel 19:12, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Perhaps @Tagooty: can help, since they took this picture. I do like the improved version, but the resolution is way too reduced (which, I understand, is because it’s only meant to demonstrate the desired improvements). UnpetitproleX (Talk) 20:17, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Please don’t, at least not yet :) my suggestion is meant to be an example to outline what I meant by overexposure and washed-out colours. It has been done from the JPG as 2nd generation (so artifacts are building up) instead of the raw file, and considerably downscaled (to show the poor detail in the nomination – 24 mpix downscaled into 2⅔ mpix with no loss to speak of). If the raw file is still with us, I’d like to have a try on it, but it won’t help the sharpness issue. I would oppose as well I’m afraid. --Kreuzschnabel 19:12, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Done @Kreuzschnabel, Daniel Case, Ikan Kekek, and UnpetitproleX: Please review the improved version, with reduced exposure and other improvements. In this high altitude (12,000') semi-desert the mid-day light is naturally harsh. I find the scene is fairly sharp from the foreground to the distant ridgeline. --Tagooty (talk) 01:55, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Comment Please make sure there's only one image we can see; otherwise, I don't know what I'm supposed to judge. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:59, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Tagooty: It is a little better, in that I don't reflexively squint when I look at it. But Kreuzchnabel did this by downsampling heavily, and that is generally met with disapproval here, as his comment indicates. I am not changing my !vote. Daniel Case (talk) 02:15, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- Comment @Daniel Case and Ikan Kekek: Sorry for the confusion. I had uploaded a new version of the original image. To avoid confusion, I've modified Kreuzchnabel's comment to not display his image (his link is retained). Please click on the original image for the new version. --Tagooty (talk) 03:11, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- Support --Tagooty (talk) 01:55, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- Comment @Tagooty: In order to avoid confusion (we’re having votings on different images mixed up now), and to not meddle with others’ comments (which is not considered good practice here), it would be much wiser to withdraw this nomination and place a new one for the reworked image. And it would be still a bit wiser to upload the reworked image under a new name so the nomination subpages archived refer to their respective image versions in question. --Kreuzschnabel 07:17, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Kreuzschnabel: My apologies for the modification to your comment. --Tagooty (talk) 15:29, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- As the nominator, I’ll withdraw and renominate. There seems to be too much confusion. Though one thing someone more experienced should clarify to me: will the nomination be counted as a renomination (ie do I need to put a /2 in the nomination) and if so do I need to wait till this nomination is moved to the archives? UnpetitproleX (Talk) 14:21, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- Info @UnpetitproleX: Once you add the withdraw template, the nomination will soon be closed and removed from the FPC page. After closure, renomination can be done with a /2 so the original nomination and its discussion is not disturbed. The reason for the renomination should be mentioned. --Tagooty (talk) 01:10, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination --UnpetitproleX (Talk) 06:37, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
