Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Tomb of Safdarjung, New Delhi.jpg

File:Tomb of Safdarjung, New Delhi.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Dec 2012 at 11:23:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Tomb of Safdarjung, New Delhi.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Tomb of Safdarjung, New Delhi.jpg

•  Info created by Pranav7 - uploaded by Pranav7 - nominated by Rsrikanth05 -- Rsrikanth05 (talk) 11:23, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
•  Support -- Rsrikanth05 (talk) 11:23, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
•  Support -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 12:06, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
•  Comment Interesting, please noise reduction and fix ca --The Photographer (talk) 13:36, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose Very difficult lighting conditions, but too many technical flaws (sharpness, noise, chromatic noise). Nice attempt though, and very interesting.--Jebulon (talk) 14:34, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose same as jebulon. --PierreSelim (talk) 14:45, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose Nice composition, but sharpness and noise issues. --Dey.sandip (talk) 15:10, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
•  Comment This pic was the Winner of WLM 2012. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 16:30, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
  • That probably points out at the deficiency of the judging process then --Dey.sandip (talk) 20:25, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
    • From what I can tell, QIC focuses only on technical quality (up to a point, e.g. it can't be so lacking in "wow" factor that no one bothers to review it in 8 days), while WLM focuses only on "wow" factor (up to a point, e.g. it can't look like junk at 1 MP). FPC requires both. So I don't think it's fair to criticize the judges of WLM when the criteria for WLM and FPC are different. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:46, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
      • I am not really trying to criticize any one, but if I remember correctly WLM listed technical quality as one of the important parameters of judging. The image that was submitted in original form (not talking about Poco's re-work) won't pass QI evaluation I'm afraid. --Dey.sandip (talk) 06:38, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
        •  Info If you want to understand how the jury worked, you can read the jury report. After the introduction, the jury explains, in a few words, the 15 first choices. --Selbymay (talk) 07:53, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
        • I never said it would pass QI. In fact, I'm making the point that a lot of WLM winners won't pass QI. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 12:43, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
          • Oh yes ! There are many reasons for that...--Jebulon (talk) 00:19, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose Bad technical quality, slightly off-center but definitely worth a retry. Regards, Peter Weis (talk) 16:33, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
•  Support -- I see no objection for this image to become featured. Not becoming featured probably points out at the deficiency of the judging process for featured pictures on Commons itself. Romaine (talk) 12:27, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
  • IMO, the collection of many (not all) WLM winners probably points out at the deficiency of the judging process for winners of the WLM contest itself...--Jebulon (talk) 00:24, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
    • That's a bit harsh isn't it? Just a curious question, did you and Dey participate in the competition? --Muhammad (talk) 01:12, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
      • I don't think its really relevant to ask that in this context :). But as a matter of fact, I did submit two images in WLM 2012; one of them is a FP http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cave_Temple_3,_Badami.JPG --Dey.sandip (talk) 05:59, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
      • I've no problem in answering. Because I participated very hardly in the WLM2011edition and disagreed very much with almost all the results, I boycotted the 2012 edition, and this pic makes me think that I was right... Harsh enough  ?--Jebulon (talk) 00:17, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Alternative

Being the winner of WLM2012 we should give it a try. I have reduced noise (both chromatic and non-chromatic), corrected the perspective (adjusting the crop), reduced the overexposed areas and increased contrast a bit Poco a poco (talk) 19:18, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

•  Support Poco a poco (talk) 19:18, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
•  Support Nice work Poco. Saffron Blaze (talk) 20:02, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose Indeed great work by Poco, but still sufficient blue/green fringing and lot of dark patches for me to oppose --Dey.sandip (talk) 20:28, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

  I could reduce the saturation of the blue channel (I think that the green frinding is neglectable) but then we would get close to a B&W image Poco a poco (talk) 20:52, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

  • That would probably solve one problem, but looking at it more closely again, I see quite a loss of detail too as pointed out by Peter Weis below --Dey.sandip (talk)
•  Support Béria Lima ^msg 21:06, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
•  Support --Ezarateesteban 21:49, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose Overprocessing. There are very few details left. The image doesn't look like a photo any more. Regards, Peter Weis (talk) 22:32, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose Despite the improvement by Poco, it still looks like a CG drawing. --Selbymay (talk) 07:53, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

  At this point I'd like to encourage everybody to give it a try. Out of the comments I am not sure if you see room for improvements or the original picture has so many issues that we'll not be able to make it fit for FP. Poco a poco (talk) 08:18, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

•  Oppose: Good editing. But sadly, the original noise level seems to be too high to be able to correct it without getting rid of most of the detail. --Julian H. (talk/files) 08:43, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
•  Support -- I see no objection for this image to become featured. Not becoming featured probably points out at the deficiency of the judging process for featured pictures on Commons itself. Romaine (talk) 12:27, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
•  Support Near-perfect sharpness and almost no noise at 2000px is good enough for me. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 12:48, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
•  Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 14:29, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
•  Info --New post-processed version uploaded: less noise reduction and sharpening than the previous edit, reduced color patches, other corrections. Unfortunately I don't think miracles are possible in this case. Sting (talk) 14:40, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

  

  version: edit_2

•  Support Tomer T (talk) 16:50, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose Wonderful composition and lighting, but there just isn't enough depth of field. Only the closest parts of the tomb are sharp enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:24, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose The composition is excellent and from a creative standpoint the image is near-perfect, so I can completely see why it won the WLM2012 competition. However, the criteria for Commons FPs (last time I checked) didn't explicitly include creativity. What they do include is technical quality—good lighting, colors, and little noise. Unfortunately this image doesn't fit the criteria, although again, it's an amazing picture. —Ynhockey (talk) 20:32, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
  • But it includes 'wow'. Tomer T (talk) 05:57, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
•  Support Good composition.—Bill william compton^Talk 11:06, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Ynhockey.--Jebulon (talk) 20:06, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
•  Support Very nice! Michael Barera (talk) 02:56, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose The composition is great, but it's over-denoised now. --PierreSelim (talk) 10:12, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose lacks sharpness. --Pine^✉ 18:58, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 9 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 22:16, 13 December 2012 (UTC)