Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Onça-pintada na Estação Ecológica de Taiamã por Queucer (01).jpg

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

File:Onça-pintada na Estação Ecológica de Taiamã por Queucer (01).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Aug 2022 at 00:12:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Two females panthera onca at Estação Ecológica de Taiamã
  •  Comment And nothing happens … @Queucer: We want to help you; we would be happy to feature your photo once the processing of the raw image file has been improved. I am sure several of our experienced photographers will even do it for you if you give them the raw image file (i.e. the CRW or CR2 file in the case of your camera); for example, I offer you to try it, just contact me. Or ask e.g. Poco a poco who uses a similar camera and has much experience in optimizing high-ISO shots taken with a Canon 5DS(R). All the best, --Aristeas (talk) 07:46, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will order Charles Topaz Denoising AI SW and can give it a try, otherwise I'll use Adobe Lr/Ph, but sure, I will try to help here Poco a poco (talk) 08:02, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    at ISO 800 I don't think Topaz will even be necessary (to get my vote anyways). A proper "mask" setting shall greatly improve the sharpening output. Maybe combine that with some slight NR too. Of course, no one will say no if you have it and can make it even better... ;) - Benh (talk) 14:34, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Did you see that noise? It's way above anything we've ever promoted. People here have done better in worse situations. Daniel Case (talk) 01:51, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
People here do not live in a third-world country, where a camera is a luxury.
And photos are not only technical quality.
"People here have done better in worse situations."
Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals/Mammals/Carnivora#Family_:_Felidae_(Felids)
I am looking at all the jaguars that we have in FP, one is steady steel, and by your criteria would never pass.
Two are in bright sunlight. Made by a gringo, not a Brazilian, or other South American.
And the rest is in a zoo.
So "People here have done better in worse situations."
Probably from a boat, after sunset, in a rainforest (that you may not know, but is hell dark), a fight scene, with a 7 years old camera that cost today 21k BRL (the same price of high-end Canon R5 in the USA) one year salary of an engineer in the country. So who did better?
-- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 04:37, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
El Grafo I was not the one that started the dramatic theatre by a lack of knowledge.-- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 11:29, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you were. You were writing in English, using a term that is often considered derogatory in that language. Maybe you did not know about that. That's OK. I gave you a way out of there. Could have just said "whoops, sorry, I didn't know, I didn't mean it that way". Calm down, go for a walk, and come back when you're done being angry. --El Grafo (talk) 11:50, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is the point here, I am not angry.
I am not the one saying "Pathetic. Sad. Insulting" or "And you need to study your geography and your photography", or "try to do so without an insult". -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 12:18, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You need to understand English usage before insulting non-Brazilians. If you really did not intend gringo to be derogatory, then a simple apology would have worked. And you need to study your geography and your photography. This photo was not taken anywhere near the Amazon rainforest or indeed any rainforest. You should not mislead FP voters. It is unlikely to be a 'fight scene'. The Reserve states that the jaguars are social and play-fighting is a social activity for all big cats. The Pantanal is not 'hell dark', although my 3 FPs of Jaguars were not taken in bright sunlight. You could have worked that out by looking at the ISO I used: 800/1600/3200 and the lack of any shadows. It seems that this image was taken either with flash or a bright light - neither are recommended for mammal photography. I agree El Grafo that I did over-react, apologies to everyone else. Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:08, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I need to learn English, I need to be polite to a foreigner, and you don't need even to learn any other language. You can keep insulting me, but every time that you write you reinforce my point. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 11:27, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What is your point actually? "This image has to be featured despite its quality drawbacks because it's from Brazil"? You can't be serious with that. --2A02:908:1980:73E0:1AD3:F1E0:EC1C:698E 11:37, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Log on, and read again. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 11:50, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I did, and still what I put in quotes above is the only substantial point I can draw from your contributions in this nomination. So please correct me if I'm wrong (try to do so without an insult). --2A02:908:1980:73E0:1AD3:F1E0:EC1C:698E 12:01, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"try to do so without an insult" I will refuse to answer, first log on, second, change your accusatory posture. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 12:11, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem with this particular image is that it looks much noisier than on would expect from a photo taken with this particular camera under these conditions (5DS @ ISO 800). I'd be willing to bet that this is largely due to processing. It's easy to accidentally emphasize noise when you're not careful with your sharpening, and the noise in this picture looks like exactly that has happened. There are no do-overs in an action shot like this, but there are do-overs in processing. Should be easy for @Queucer to go back to Photoshop and fix the problem. I'd support in a heartbeat. El Grafo (talk) 08:02, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment The strong grainy effect is clearly sharpened noise without any doubt, so it happened in processing and should be fixable as long as the original file has not been deleted. I'd suggest to withdraw this nomination here and have the image reworked by the author. - Generally, it's pointless to argue about votings here. In nominating an FPC, you're asking for other's opinions on this particular image, and with their votes, you're getting opinions. You don't have to "fight for your nomination" here (and won't make them change their vote by that). --2A02:908:1980:73E0:237D:BFE0:1BCA:AED3 09:20, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am just exposing a general problem that having happening and have a great effect in "what is good". We have tons of European and North American photos, or made but those illustrating another country. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 11:04, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are not wrong about this in general, there certainly is a strong geographical/cultural/... bias here. But this is really not a great example to go on a rant and make this point. The problem here clearly lies in the post processing rather than quality of the camera or the financial situation of the photographer. The 5DS may be a couple of years old, but it is still an excellent piece of equipment. El Grafo (talk) 11:22, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have to disagree even on that :( 1,2, Canon 5DS and 5DSR are good in a controlled environment but look how noisy the images are, the first one the background was cleaned, but the subject not, the second the is in ISO 400, and in sunlight, the background is not clear.
Yes, the photographer chooses to not diminish the sharpness of the photo, and increase the dark areas without controlling the noise, and this is not a good camera for that.
But under these circumstances, for me, still acceptable, and more usable with greater sharpness and with some noise. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 12:01, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Commons does not care about other circumstances. If it's exceptionally good, then it's promoted, if it's not, then it doesn't. Period. SHB2000 (talk) 10:11, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nice elitist speech. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 10:38, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They're right nevertheless. Images are judged here by their excellence only, regardless of where they come from or what equipment has been used to produce them, so there's no discrimination. And you've been said repeatedly now that the issue here comes from processing, not from the camera, so your "can't afford a better one" lamento is pointless, as nobody ever demanded that. --2A02:908:1980:73E0:1AD3:F1E0:EC1C:698E 11:41, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment To be honest, I don't understand this discussion at all, the noise level is high, it could have been reduced and the image would have been FP to me. Instead arguing about gringos, pictures taken by foreigners or locals and so on. Somebody here, Rodrigo.Argenton, hasn't got the point. We are here to select the best images and, if possible, improve them together. Assuming all comments are personal attacks (or attacks to your country or people) is just wrong and will not help you here or in future noms. Poco a poco (talk) 08:49, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"I don't understand this discussion at all"
I noticed. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 00:20, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 00:35, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Onça-pintada_na_Estação_Ecológica_de_Taiamã_por_Queucer_(01).jpg&oldid=684215700"