Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Montreal night view.jpg

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

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Nov 2011 at 22:28:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Night view of Montreal from "Belvedere Kondiaronk, chalet du Mont Royal".

White balance fixed (less purply), and re-cropped. (talk) 22:28, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose Unattractive sky and blurry lights. Detail too low. Even at screen resolution, Diliffs is a better photo, and only gets better as you explore it. Colin (talk) 19:55, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Responding to comments below re Diliff's. I agree that Diliff's panos are among the best anywhere so not a reasonable bar. I was responding to the peculiar comment that this was better than Diliffs -- I'm struggling to see how. City skylines are relatively easy photos to take (millions of people live in each one so there are lots of opportunities). A stitched pano is also relatively easy these days and doesn't need to cost anything. The photographer here has been unfortunately IMO that atmospheric conditions didn't lend themselves to either an attractive sky or clarity (whereas Diliff's winter snowfall has cleared the atmosphere). Also don't see what being a "one-shot image" has to do with compensating for its weaknesses. If I took a photograph of a beetle with a kit lens rather than a macro, it wouldn't be featured. I'm not saying a stitched pano is essential for a skyline photo, but it would have to be a pretty fantastic image to compensate for the lack of detail. I don't think this one is outstanding. Colin (talk) 19:56, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Info Wow, how many comparisons. Just wanted to make this clear: I personally think Diliff's pano is incredible. That picture is a stitched panorama, an excellent pic no doubt, made of 15 images. That one was taken in late afternoon and in winter. This is a one shot image (may even have its benefits: loads faster, can see metadata for example), was taken at night, in fall. If a city gets featured once, then can't it be featured again? What happens with all the pictures of Toronto skyline? I don't know if it's 100% fair to compare images and say which one is "better" (for both authors): these are different pics. The same happens with the tons of pics dragonflies, BF's, other subjects and repeated animals. I think it would be more fair to judge based on whether one thinks it is a featurable picture, not which one is better. --Paolo Costa (talk) 20:21, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      •  Comment I would suggest not to make comparisons with other people works - I don't find it polite. An image can be different due to many reasons, lighting conditions, different time of the years etc etc. Everyone here has not the last technology full frame sensor and every camera has different image quality. Some people know better image processing and can make the image look better.. Paolo Costa made a good image, with acceptable quality for FPC (according to the support votes).. Giving to his image a FP status Paolo Costa next time will try to nominate another image.. Please do not push commons to the edge that only people with the best sensor and best image processing knowledge should contribute here. A goal here should be, to attract more and more people that are willing to publish high quality and EV images that deserve FP status. Ggia (talk) 20:55, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ggia, if I nominated a FPC and you suggested we should give it a FP to encourage me to upload and nominate more pictures rather than being discouraged, I'd be insulted. As I said, you can create a better pano with the cheapest DSLR and some free software and a little time. No expensive tripods or full frame cameras or L glass necessary. In that regard, city panos are much easier than bird or insect photographs, which to achieve FP require seriously expensive equipment. Can I suggest that perhaps by rejecting this FPC, Paolo Costa might next time try to take a better picture of the same scene. Not all of us react to criticism by giving up. As for making comparisons not being polite, can I point out that the word "finest" requires comparison, if not to similar scenes then to a body of work. FP is not just "Good photographs". Colin (talk) 21:49, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't believe that city panos are easier than bird photography or photos of objects shot in studios (ie. shells of Liez or archaeodontosaurus's fossils). For me it is impossible to have access to shells that Liez has access or to Fossils that archaeodontosaurus has. For me is difficult to be in Portugal and make panoramas like the one that Alvesgaspar makes. It is also difficult for me to be in Montreal to make this night shot (that Paolo and Dliff made). For me as a Greek I can get easier a visa to travel in Iran. Some of you.. ie. if you are from USA or Israel it is very hard to travel in Iran. So making a "trivial" pano in Iran not anybody can go and make it. We are all volunteers, we are photographers, we are not earning money contributing with high quality images at commons.. We have to keep FPC community open to newcomers. I don't find either fruitful (I mentioned that it is not polite) in the comments to make comparisons with other photos. Because each photo is different (can have different lighting, different angle of view, can be in different weather condition - time of the year - aesthetically can have different composition-crop) etc. Ggia (talk) 23:48, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • We all have our own talents and limitations through circumstances, experience, ability or funds. We should be judging the photograph, not making allowances. One way of judging how easy a photograph is, is to search for it on Google Images. By that measure, your Iran images are rare and valuable whereas Montreal skylines are ten a penny. There are four million people living in and around Montreal. I'd much rather someone told me how to take a better picture next time than told me it was "excellent, considering" or words to that effect. There's always a subjective comparison going on with photographs, otherwise we'd have figured out how to make a computer program to judge. Colin (talk) 08:51, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment That's ok guys. You both have valid points. Thanx for the encouragement Ggia. Comparisons may be necessary at some point. Improvement and perfection is always welcome if you want something to be really good. On the other hand, it is, kind of discouraging, to get opposes for sharpness in this case, (I took the shot several times to make sure this didn't happen, even with manual focus), but it's not the end of the world. Putting images to judgment means getting criticized, it's part of it. I don't think I'll take a better shot next time, 'cos I usually don't visit a place twice, so, there will be no next time in Montreal I guess. But rules are rules, if 1/2 of votes are opposes that's it, means I still have to improve. As for the pano thing, I just do not take night panos. That's a personal thing, you may think different. By night, detail is already lost. I take lots of panoramics, just never at night (by pano I mean a multi-shot image). I just wanted to point out that this was not a Diliff Vs Paolo voting. Just a "determine whether you think it's featurable or not" voting. Thanks and have a good day!--Paolo Costa (talk) 16:10, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- After considerable thought. It is an excellent one-shot image that shouldn't be directly compared with a stitched panorama. Anyway, Diliff's panos do not establish a minimum FP thereshold because they are considerably above it, imo. Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:29, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral In thumbnail, it's really nice. At full resolution I get the feeling that there is a slight misfocus, but then your at f/9...or maybe its the haze! --Jovian Eye storm 00:20, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Yann (talk) 13:02, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support the 7th vote: nice night shot with EV.. keep uploading images that deserve the FP status. I would suggest to increase a little bit the levels of the image in order the image to have some more light (I checked this option in my computer and the image is a little bit better IMO). Ggia (talk) 14:30, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I know, the view from Mont Royal is always fascinating, even if weather is worse (I was there two times). But this picture has lacking sharpness, overexposured parts and is far away from being exceptional. --Wladyslaw (talk) 21:41, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 7 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 17:28, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Panoramas
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Montreal_night_view.jpg&oldid=63121339"