Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Кула Сибињанин Јанка (Гардош Кула, Београд; Gardoš Tower in Belgrade).jpg

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

File:Кула Сибињанин Јанка (Гардош Кула, Београд; Gardoš Tower in Belgrade).jpg

[edit]

Voting period ends on 20 Oct 2024 at 08:24:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gardoš Tower in Belgrade
  • Even if his vote has had to be withdrawn, I see what RealPhotoManiac means about the horizontal stripes. I left an image note to indicate a transition that is very abrupt. I think that counts as a significant technical flaw unfortunately. Cmao20 (talk) 10:24, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Ouch, extreeeeeme perspective distorsions, at the bottom. Lens focal length 12.29 mm. The drone was certainly very close. Nice light, excellent weather, but really distorted building (odd aspect), in state -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:06, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose It looks like the whole image is composed of several horizontal stripes that unfortunately are not connected seamlessly. On the balcony, there are legs without a body. Next to the legs, the three windows are also cut in half. On the bottom of the image, there is a one big stripe which is heavily shifted and not aligned with the rest of the picture. The artifacts from using AI sharpening tool are too disturbing and the overall technical quality is like from a smartphone.--RealPhotoManiac (talk) 09:41, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
After checking the picture again, I believe that the whole bottom part (from the very left to the very right) of the image was created by cloning / content aware fill. Check the walls and the pavement – many stones or their parts are repeating. RealPhotoManiac (talk) 15:05, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, there are some houses / roofs / windows in the cityscape on the right (next to the balcony), which appears to be in the picture twice. In this case, it is not fake content, it's just a poor stitching. Such artifacts should not be there, but as others have noted, if stitched properly (and documented properly), this kind of edit should be OK. RealPhotoManiac (talk) 22:10, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Looks distorted. --Thi (talk) 10:12, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Heavy technical flaws, per others and image notes -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:37, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose (1) Regarding the centre: It’s common that photos are composed from several frames, e.g. in stitched panoramas. But then we require that the stitching is accurate and seamless, and one should mention the stitching on the description page; both requirements are not met here. (2) Regarding the bottom: It can also happen that, especially after perspective correction, some small parts of an image are “missing”, normally in the corners. I would not mind if somebody fills these gaps by cloning if they contain only unimportant parts of the image, i.e. a part of the sky, of the water of a river/lake, of a meadow, of the asphalt of a road, of a boring wall, etc. But it seems here not only some small parts in the corners were missing, but that the whole bottommost 500 px of the image were constructed. This is a bit too much. In the past we have discussed (and almost all voters have accepted) that a part of the sky can be added/extended (e.g. in this nomination); but here a really meaningfull part of the image is affected, and this without even mentioning it on the description page. – IMHO the image (which is very interesting and beautiful) can be rescued if (1) the author improves the stitching in the centre and mentions it on the description page and (2) either just drops the bottommost 500px or adds them by seamless stitching from another frame. – Aristeas (talk) 15:56, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment In general, I vote cautiously and rarely dissent. In this case, I can well understand the opposing votes. The lower part was not cloned well enough, especially on the walls. The 500 pixels of cloned part would not have been necessary. If the photographer does a careful re-edit, takes the time and effort, and then reveals all the important retouching on the file page, then the nomination could possibly be rescued. -- Radomianin (talk) 16:35, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  I withdraw my nomination i didnt saw it, till reediting. --Mile (talk) 17:01, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You mean that you faked that bottom 500 px accidentally and didn't notice it? Seriously? RealPhotoManiac (talk) 05:53, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Кула_Сибињанин_Јанка_(Гардош_Кула,_Београд;_Gardoš_Tower_in_Belgrade).jpg&oldid=940834951"