Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Suru Bog.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:Suru Bog.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Dec 2013 at 22:15:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info created by Urmas Haljaste - uploaded by Urmas Haljaste - nominated by Urmas Haljaste -- Urmas Haljaste (talk) 22:15, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Support -- Urmas Haljaste (talk) 22:15, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Support WOW! Amazing pic. --P e z i (talk) 23:56, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Oppose Very nice composition but poor image quality, far from the present FP standards. There is nothing sharp in this picture. The difference to this other present nomination is amazing. I just don't understand. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:20, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Comment I'm not sure but it seems to me that the other picture you are referring to is captured with a medium format camera. --Urmas Haljaste (talk) 09:08, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
- I don't know, but Richard's camera used to be a full frame Canon with less resolution than the Nikon D800.
- Look at the metadata. It is medium format camera. --Urmas Haljaste (talk) 09:55, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Question Was this picture upsampled from the previously uploaded one? That would explain the strong blur. Incidentally, the vertical dimension of this image is larger than the width of a D800 photo. No theory of conspiracy here, just a genuine curiosity in understanding why the image is so blurred. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:10, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
- It was not upsampled. And the vertical dimension I cannot explain. It happens when the pictures are merged together so I blame Photoshop. It merger them together again and now there are even more pixels. --Urmas Haljaste (talk) 09:55, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Oppose A bit overcooked and no wow. Saffron Blaze (talk) 02:01, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Support No wow? Really? And recall that this is 112 MP; if downsampled 50%, this would be tack-sharp and still 28 MP. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:20, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Support --Tuxyso (talk) 08:06, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 09:59, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Support Wonderful. --Laitche (talk) 12:37, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Oppose Per Alvesgaspar. (thumb is nice) --Kikos (talk) 18:56, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Oppose Per others, when I open an FP at full size I just expect sharpness, it definitely needs a rework Poco2 22:28, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Oppose per others. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 23:03, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Comment I must say that I just love the contradicting opinions. I uploaded a new version, a little sharper but I think I still won't convince my friends who believe in contrast/sharpness/clarity. --Urmas Haljaste (talk) 09:55, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Oppose per others, nice at low resolution but at full there is a lack of quality IMO --Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:24, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Comment I guess I should stay to low resolution then. --Urmas Haljaste (talk) 18:30, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Support St1995 20:15, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Alternative
[edit]Info Sharpened and downsampled by Laitche. If the author doesn't like this alternative I would withdraw the nomination. --Laitche (talk) 19:13, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Support --Laitche (talk) 19:13, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Support I like it. Thank you. --Urmas Haljaste (talk) 21:58, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Support -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 07:59, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Support good and nice --Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:19, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Support --Kikos (talk) 09:10, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Support Also very good. But I do not really understand why downscaling (with information loss) improves an image and makes it more featureable. --Tuxyso (talk) 09:14, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
- Because, in this case, the original is an obvious upsample. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:12, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
- A new revolution in digital photography? Downsample an upsampled image and the result is better than original? I don't think so. But loss of information can improve the image. Sharpening is nothing else but loss of information. It is a question of taste. I prefer nature photos not to be so sharp. And I evaluate photos at the screen size. I zoom in to full size to find sensor dust spots. --Urmas Haljaste (talk) 16:45, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:05, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Support In my opinion, both images are ok :) Kruusamägi (talk) 14:16, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:43, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Support --Böhringer (talk) 22:27, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Support St1995 20:15, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Support • Richard • [®] • 20:35, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Support Michael Barera (talk) 21:46, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural
The chosen alternative is: File:Suru Bog 10000px.jpg