Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Latvian sauna house II.jpg

File:Latvian sauna house II.jpg, withdrawn

Voting period ends on 10 Mar 2009 at 16:09:08

•  Info created, uploaded, nominated by Tfioreze -- Tiago Fioreze (talk) 16:09, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
•  Info Alternative photo for the nomination above.
•  Support -- Tiago Fioreze (talk) 16:09, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose not sharp in detail (work more, to be able to buy a better camera, sorry), no wow effect.--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 09:13, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
  •  Question How about you to be less arrogant instead? Tiago Fioreze (talk) 09:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
  • yea, what a mindless comment! please do not pollute the world with stuff like that. thank you! Amada44 (talk) 09:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
    • I am sorry, didnt want to be arogant.--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 09:53, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
      •  Comment Apology accepted! Tiago Fioreze (talk) 10:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

•  Oppose No wow. —kallerna™ 14:26, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment --Tiago, imo you shouldn't use the sharpness setting at < hard > in the camera: put it at a softer level and improve the sharpness later on the computer using the software delivered with the camera or a third-party one because their processing will almost always be better than the one from the camera. In this picture you can see very well along the vertical posts in front of the house (and in other places too) the artifacts due to the over-sharpening setting. Sting (talk) 15:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I may say something that I'm not completely sure about it. I always thought (correct me if I'm mistaken) that camera settings for sharpness, saturation, and contrast are only relevant when you shoot at JPEG format, not for RAW format. In the case of the photo above, I took it in RAW format (.PNG .DNG) and I performed a post-processing using Aperture 2.1. The post-processing consisted of performing some edge sharpening and increasing contrast. Am I doing something wrong? Thanks in advance!
    • I don't know how it works with Pentax cameras and how far you processed the image, but if the exif says that the sharpness was set to < hard > I imagine that you didn't modify it when you developed the RAW file, so this setting from the camera was applied. Take a look at the original file: if the artifacts along the posts are present, it comes from the original settings in the camera. If not, it comes from the post-processing. In this case, try to hide the areas where the artifacts appear using a mask, for example in Photoshop or The Gimp, with the original image as background layer and the post-processed one as a layer above. Sting (talk) 21:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
      • The camera seems to export the settings into the EXIF data even though the photo is in RAW format. Maybe the artifacts you saw was due to my post-processing settings. I've uploaded a new version of this photo, in which I believe to have done a more "gentle" sharpening. Could you give me your 2 cents about this new version? Tiago Fioreze (talk) 22:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
        • When shooting in RAW the settings of the camera are kept (sharpness, WB, saturation, etc.), like in JPG. The advantage of the RAW format is that these settings are only informations embedded in the file and you can cancel/modify them without loss of quality. When developing the RAW file with the dedicated software, make gentle corrections: for example with this image, a WB put on < Daylight > or < Mountain > might give an even better result than the < Auto > one (not really precise, at least on Canon); make the corrections of the lens, the vignetting, the chromatic aberrations if your software has these settings; adjust slightly the contrast, etc. For harsher post-processing I would recommend to use a specialized software like The Gimp or Photoshop because it will be much easier with their layers to control each area of the image and apply the modifications only where they are needed. I know this will take more time and work than using the RAW-developing software solely, but the results will be optimal and you should be able to rescue more problematic photographs. Well, this is only my POV, each one works the way he feels it better. About your image, yes I prefer much more this second version as the artifacts disappeared. Compare both versions side by side and you will see that the first over-processed upload didn't make you gain anything in sharpness (imo), only artifacts. Sting (talk) 02:07, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
          • Thanks for your time and explanations. Tiago Fioreze (talk) 18:35, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

 Tiago Fioreze (talk) 08:55, 7 March 2009 (UTC)