Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Blue Hour at Pakistan Monument.jpg

File:Blue Hour at Pakistan Monument.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Nov 2019 at 15:05:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Blue Hour at Pakistan Monument.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Blue Hour at Pakistan Monument.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Other
•  Info created & uploaded by Muh.Ashar - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 15:05, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
•  Support -- Tomer T (talk) 15:05, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
•  Support Lovely light. The tourists aren't too bothersome, and do provide a scale. Shame the reflection is not captured right to the bottom, within something blurred at the bottom, but this is not too distracting. -- Colin (talk) 17:21, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
•  Comment Certainly featurable, do you think anything could be done about the colour banding/posterization in the sky? --Kreuzschnabel 17:27, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
•  Comment If I am wrong about this, please let me know. The resolution for this image in Commons is listed as 6000 x 4000 pixels yet the Nikon D7200 listed in the metadata produces a DX-format image with a maximum resolution of 4800 x 3200 pixels. Over-sampling does not help this image and there is nothing wrong with a DX-format image if well done. Suggest it be uploaded again at the native resolution of 4800 x 3200 pixels, or less if it has been cropped. --GRDN711 (talk) 18:34, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

• I have no problem delivering photos with a greater pixel count than my camera's output by combining a few shots. It's quite popular these days, and most newbies don't know it could be useful to declare it in the file description. So the more proper question should be: Muh.Ashar, is this photo made up from several photos, or is it an upsized single shot? It would be great if you could clarify that. --Cart (talk) 18:50, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

•  Comment I see one stitching error (note added), so imo it's stitched image. Posterization on the sky is too big for me to support. --Ivar (talk) 19:32, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
•  support conditionally, assuming the highlighted errors are fixed. lovely otherwise. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  21:45, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Rhododendrites, can you make your vote clearer? Tomer T (talk) 14:09, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
    • @Tomer T:  ? I just used the support template, so the bot shouldn't be confused. It was conditional on the edits which have been made, it seems, so no problems here. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  22:08, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose Distracting blurred people, next time you could use layers with different shoots to delete the people --Wilfredor (talk) 01:30, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose Nice mood and reflection, but agree about colour banding and pixelated sky (especially clearly visible just above the structure in the middle). There is also a stitching error in the lower left corner. --A.Savin 02:02, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

   Neutral for now. The banding has been reduced in parts, yet not sufficiently fixed. --A.Savin 19:43, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

• W.carter Yes it is single image.

• Muh.Ashar, is that you answering? You have to log in so that we can see that it's you answering. I also wonder how there can be stitching error in the image if it's just one photo? --Cart (talk) 09:28, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

• @GRDN711, W.carter, A.Savin, and Cmao20: the Nikon D7200 is natively capable of shooting 6000x4000 24MP image. So I don't know where the idea comes from it is limited to 4800 x 3200 pixels. I think the small irregularity with the line is more likely to be an imperfect attempt to clone out something distracting (litter?). I don't think the line mismatch is noticable enough to oppose, though the pixellation in the sky is a bit troublesome. -- Colin (talk) 15:39, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
• @Colin, W.carter, A.Savin, and Cmao20: Thank you, Colin for the clarification. Per the Nikon spec sheet for the D7200, the maximum resolution is 6000 x 4000 pixels. There is also a 1.3x crop mode for this camera at 4800 x 3200 pixels which was my point of confusion. Sorry about that! As I now understand it, this blue hour picture is a single image of 6000 x 4000 pixels. --GRDN711 (talk) 15:52, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
• No matter what it actually is, it might be a good idea to crop away the lowest part, so that the error and the blurred object are not in the picture. I may support the image only if the issue with the pixelated sky is fixed too; which (if ever fixable) requires a new development. --A.Savin 16:00, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
• @Muh.Ashar: Just for curious, Muhammad – is this a single image taken on a tripod at f/11 with a single 20-second exposure, or is there HDR stitching (built-in or post-processing) from multiple exposures of the same image to accommodate the high dynamic range in lighting? --GRDN711 (talk) 16:40, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

• It would be so much easier if everyone would just sign their comments so we knew directly who is saying what. This isn't Twitter. --Cart (talk) 16:34, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

•  Oppose per the stitching error noted by A. Savin, but I think I would support if fixed. Cmao20 (talk) 08:04, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

•  Support Much better now. Cmao20 (talk) 22:46, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

•  Support This image represents a technical challenge but is well done. --GRDN711 (talk) 16:40, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose Distracting blurred people and pixellation in the sky. --Isiwal (talk) 17:55, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
•  Info @Muh.Ashar: I have made some corrections, please revert if you don't like the result. Also pinging all previous voters for another review: @Tomer T, Colin, W.carter, A.Savin, Cmao20, GRDN711, Isiwal, Wilfredor, Rhododendrites, and Kreuzschnabel: --Ivar (talk) 19:31, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Ivar, thanks very much for the corrections! Tomer T (talk) 20:26, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Continue to support after corrections. --GRDN711 (talk) 01:57, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
•  Support after corrections. --Ivar (talk) 20:13, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --Ermell (talk) 21:40, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
•  Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:40, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 08:30, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
•  Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:13, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
•  Support after corrections, thank you! --Aristeas (talk) 09:33, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
•  Comment - The corrections help a lot, but I feel very frustrated by the crop of the reflection, so I think I'll abstain from voting. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:47, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
•  Comment @Iifar: Thanks it look great after your kind effort. Further it's not HDR as i said it is single shot. @Ikan Kekek: sorry if the cropped reflection bothering you but this was the max focal length i got at that time and was trying to keep image straight so bit cropped from bottom. Thanks for your kind input as well. -- Muh.Ashar (talk)

• Certainly. Of course I understand that photographers deal with limitations, but all I have to consider is the resulting image. This one is ever-so-close to being an FP to me, but clearly, a consensus of other voters here believe it is an FP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:10, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

•  Oppose Great subject and lighting but per Isiwal Poco a poco (talk) 20:21, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
•  Support per Colin. I don't find the people all that bothersome; they're not the subject of the image and frankly the etherealness that creates makes a nice balance to the solidity of the monument. Daniel Case (talk) 06:26, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
•  Support − Meiræ 23:57, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 21:15, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Other