Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Parc national de la Jacques-Cartier, Quebec, Canada.jpg

File:Parc national de la Jacques-Cartier, Quebec, Canada.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Sep 2022 at 01:52:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Parc national de la Jacques-Cartier, Quebec, Canada.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Parc national de la Jacques-Cartier, Quebec, Canada.jpg

2649

2494

1703

1238

8256

5504

E.g. here the foliage looks IMHO much oversharpened and unnatural.

Update: The problem is almost gone now because the additional sharpening has been removed (again). --Aristeas (talk) 19:30, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Canada#Québec
•  Info All by -- Wilfredor (talk) 01:52, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 14:50, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
•  Comment The image could do with a little additional sharpening. Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 22:14, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

 Done Thanks --Wilfredor (talk) 22:43, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

•  Comment Nice mood and composition. However some of the foliage of the trees (for an example, please see the image note) looks IMHO strange and unnatural when viewed in full size – I guess it has been oversharpened or something else. Could you please have a look? Best, --Aristeas (talk) 09:32, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

• Supplement: The first upload (without additional sharpening) is better in that respect. It already contains some areas in which IMHO the foliage looks a bit strange, namely the parts where the foliage is shining and glittering – in these parts the foliage is much sharper than in the other parts (have you applied some selective sharpening or so which may have over-sharpened exactly the shining/glittering parts?). But the new upload with the additional sharpening has increased the effect, now the shining parts look really unnatural to me. Difficult … --Aristeas (talk) 09:40, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Regarding your question, it was not something done on purpose, I think it is the result of the artificial sharpening filter, that's why I prefer not to apply that filter (or any other). I have decided to revert those modifications but if anyone thinks they can apply it and it works better, they are welcome to modify the image. --Wilfredor (talk) 13:07, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

•  Support Thank you. IMHO it looks much more natural again. I really like the view. At thumbnail size, it seems a bit dark, but when viewing it in full size I think the brightness is appropriate. There are some softer areas, but I don’t think that they are that important, given the resolution. If you want to sharpen this photo (again) it could be a good idea to use a mask and to sharpen (carefully) only the slightly soft areas, without touching the areas which are already very sharp; this could avoid the artificial impression the intermediate version gave me. --Aristeas (talk) 15:23, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Dear Aristeas thank you for your comments. I confess you that I am not very good using those retouching tools so I concentrate on making a photo as natural as possible and without those filters and I think those filters are destructive. I would have liked to take a sharper photo but the place where I took the photo was in constant movement and it was not a stable place so I was forced to use a faster shutter speed. This weekend I will be climbing that mountain that you see at the end (Le loups or The wolves), I hope to get good views from there. --Wilfredor (talk) 15:36, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Well, as you see I already support the photo as it is. My comment about using a mask for sharpening is just for the case that other users here request more sharpening (again). For me your photo is beautiful as it is. Good look with climbing that mountain – I hope you can enjoy (and capture ;–) a good view. Best, --Aristeas (talk) 19:29, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

•  Support --Yann (talk) 20:21, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
•  Support -- Llez (talk) 17:42, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
•  Support or should I say pour? (forget about automatic translation) --SHB2000 (talk) 09:50, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
•  Oppose A nice view, but not exceptional enough for me; some lower parts of the picture are blurred. --A.Savin 11:20, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
•  Oppose First, I decided to give it a few days, but I have to say I cannot find this image really that interesting at all. So, no wow, somehow sad and dull. While the scenery is certainly nice, the light is less so, and I don’t like that tree on the right shore to cover the left bank woods (I would have taken it a bit more from the left). There’s a strange issue in the sky between the rightmost trees (grey spot) – is the reddish sky colour natural, or has it been tinted in postprocessing? --Kreuzschnabel 15:12, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
•  Weak oppose On one level I like it because the scene in question looks so much like scenes closer to home for me in the Catskills. This could easily be Esopus Creek not far above Ashokan Reservoir.

  But on the other hand there's the color and the fact that this scene does not stand out from other scenes of stream flow through mountainous terrain. Daniel Case (talk) 04:06, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

•  Question What category are you comparing it to? I find the photo and its composition beautiful, though, so I'm inclined to support if additional appropriate categories are added. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:31, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

I added two aditional categories, however, I don't have much creativity at the moment, if you can think of any cat, add it too please --Wilfredor (talk) 15:03, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

 Question How about sunsets? Is the time stamp in UTC? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:56, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

•  Weak oppose Nice but not exceptional -- Basile Morin (talk) 14:53, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:58, 2 September 2022 (UTC)