Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pittsburgh Skyline - dan Chmill.jpg

File:Pittsburgh Skyline - dan Chmill.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Apr 2019 at 19:53:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Pittsburgh Skyline - dan Chmill.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pittsburgh Skyline - dan Chmill.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places#United_States
•  Info created by Dan Chmill - uploaded & nominated by Eatcha -- 🇪🅰〒©🇭🅰- 💬 19:53, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
•  Support -- 🇪🅰〒©🇭🅰- 💬 19:53, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
•  Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 20:51, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose - Not sharp enough for a panorama, especially compared to existing FP panoramas of Pittsburgh such as File:Pittsburgh skyline panorama daytime.jpg. -- Ikan Kekek 21:05, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per Ikan, the buildings, trees, etc aren't very sharp. --BoothSift 23:52, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose Due to the high resolution, I think the sharpness is acceptable at 22 Mpx, but the colors look oversaturated, particularly the yellows that were probably not that intense in reality-- Basile Morin (talk) 00:56, 16 April 2019 (UTC) Basile Morin (talk) 00:50, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose for now. Sharpness is good to me considering the resolution. But it is oversaturated (just see eg. the orange stadium on the left). It should be fixable though. --Podzemnik (talk) 11:27, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
•  Support Nice panorama. Sharpness could be better, but I like this picture. --Rbrechko (talk) 14:01, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
•  Weak oppose Not because of sharpness, which is adequate, but because of oversaturation. I'd like to see a version of this processed more naturally. Cmao20 (talk) 14:36, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
• Cmao20,Podzemnik and Basile Morin, I uploaded a new version, what do you think ? -- 🇪🅰〒©🇭🅰- 💬 14:48, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

• Better, but for a mysterious reason your picture has become 4 times heavier, it's long to open / download / compare, all the more so as it's not sharp at full resolution -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:50, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

• I squeezed it a bit and moved to lite-progressive JPEG encodings. It now loads faster -- 🇪🅰〒ℂ🇭🅰- 💬 04:59, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

• How did you manage to grow its size so much? Oh, I just realized it's not your picture so you just work with JPG. I'm afraid it won't be really possible to make it less saturated without loosing the quality which is already on a fence. --Podzemnik (talk) 20:25, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

•  Comment - I would echo Basile's critiques, but it also now looks oversharpened to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:21, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
•  I withdraw my nomination I agree it is not possible to fix the over saturation here without Quality loss 🇪🅰〒ℂ🇭🅰- 💬 21:09, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Basile Morin (talk) 06:44, 18 April 2019 (UTC)