Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Markham-suburbs aerial-edit2.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Image:Markham-suburbs id.jpg, not featured; Version 3 featured
[edit]- Info created by IDuke - uploaded by Saoshyant - nominated by Jeses --Jeses 09:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Support Great composition --Jeses 09:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose --Not really sharp, file name (double extension). See the edited version bellow. Sting 13:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose ac Sting --Lestat 10:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Cecil 04:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Image:Markham-suburbs_aerial-edit.jpg, not featured
[edit]- Info edited version by Sting : file name double extension fixed, sharpness enhanced.
- Comment I've improved a bit the sharpness, even if it's not perfect (but increasing it brings too many artefacts) and even if it seems the original version had been already post-processed on the sharpness. Sting 13:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
SupportNeutral (after having made the Edit2 version) --Very nice photograph and view. The sharpness is not perfect but even so I think it's really good. I love it. Sting 13:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)- Support Good very interesting view, I think it has good value. --Beyond silence 13:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Support Great - good pov, nice shadows, i love the "natural" repetition of the houses. --Simonizer 14:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)Changed my vote to the new version --Simonizer 08:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC)- Support even better --Jeses 15:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Support Very funny shot. --Nattfodd 16:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment needs geocoding. Lycaon 16:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Support Nice photograph. I'll never understand why people would want to live in a development like that, it's got no soul. Calibas 16:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Support - Well, it's still better than living in a small city apartment... Very nice shot. Alvesgaspar 17:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose It is indeed a very good composition, but why is everyone ignoring the very low colour saturation and contrast? An edit to improve that would really provide the impact that this picture needs. I'll of course support a suitable edit. --MichaelMaggs 18:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Very low saturation? I believe this to be the 'real' colours of the houses. Likewise, contrast seems to correspond to the late afternoon or early morning that the shadows indicate. I really don't see the need of an edit here. --Nattfodd 21:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Saturation has been lost in the edit. --MichaelMaggs 21:45, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Not in my edit, as I only enhanced the sharpness. Sting 23:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Dezidor 21:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Neutral Could use a levels' adjustement, and there is some sort of lens obstruction in lower right corner. Dori - Talk 21:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Lower right or upper left ? Corrected in the Edit2 version. Sting 23:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Lower right is right, and it's still there. Dori - Talk 04:26, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, I don't understand well what you mean. Can you explain and /or indicate where it is ? Sting 04:56, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- I thought it's pretty obvious, but oh well, uploaded image, see on the right. Dori - Talk 08:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- ok, thanks. Fixed in the Edit and Edit2 versions. Sting 12:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- Support I don't think sharpening the original version was needed, but it didn't spoil it. I also prefer the unsaturated version because what it striking in this picture is the "uniformity" of the houses, and to me, same must goes for the colours. It shows how sad are the buildings these days, that there's no space left for originality and so on. Also, there's nothing which tells us that saturating was more true to what it really looked like. -- Benh 09:25, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- Morning or late afternoon lightning brings warmer colours, hence more vivid even if the colours of the houses may be faded. I think the Edit2 version is closer to reality. Sting 12:23, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 2 neutral => not featured. Cecil 04:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- Version below has better votes -- Cecil 04:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Image:Markham-suburbs_aerial-edit2.jpg, featured
[edit]- Info 2nd edited version by Sting : saturation and contrast enhanced.
- Comment Michael, I think you're right : I've made the first edit fast and the depressing suburb made me think these poor colours were the real ones. Sting 21:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Support --I prefer even this version with more vivid colours. Sting 21:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Support Horrible! It looks like a prison. An FP prison then ;-). (
geocoding still required, thoughadded it myself;-) Lycaon 11:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)) Lycaon 23:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC) Supportplease sign to validate your vote. Lycaon 07:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC) Thanks for doing that edit.- Support That was me. Sorry. --MichaelMaggs 16:28, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- Support Great - good pov, nice shadows, i love the "natural" repetition of the houses. --Simonizer 08:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- Support Good too, but looks a bit oversaturated unnatural. --Beyond silence 09:54, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- Slightly less saturated version uploaded (the workspace of my computer is less saturated than the web display). Sting 12:14, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- Support Much better. Good work. --Nattfodd 14:59, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Every suburb I've been in has very neutral boring colors, while this edit makes the picture more aesthetically pleasing it's not accurate. The original version has a much more realistic color. Calibas 18:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Thermos 20:09, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- Support Slightly oversaturated, but very nice and almost abstract composition. -- MJJR 20:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- Support much better although it leaves me yearning more more zoom (resolution) --Pumpmeup 03:42, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- SupportVassil 20:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose I don't believe the colours are true to the spirit of that picture (I pretty much agree with Calibas actually). Benh 17:50, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
result: 10 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Cecil 04:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)