Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Peilican.jpg

File:Peilican.jpg

Voting period ends on 9 Aug 2009 at 09:32:55

Original, not featured

•  Info created by Julielangford - uploaded by Julielangford - nominated by Julielangford -- Julielangford (talk) 09:32, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Julielangford (talk) 09:32, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose The animal is good, but the background is too disturbing… :( →Diti the penguin — 10:12, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Noisy.--Two+two=4 (talk) 16:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment Very nice composition, and colours. I like the background, but the image has lots of noise as pointed out by other reviewers. I have uploaded a noise reduced edit for your consideration. --Slaunger (talk) 21:06, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

  Now nominated below as a separate edit. --Slaunger (talk) 21:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

   Oppose orginal in favor of edit. --Slaunger (talk) 21:34, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

•  Comment Cool, and thanks Slaunger. What happens now, should we replace mine with your edit? Add yours here for consideration instead? I don't know how this part of it works here. I am working on a noise reduced version myself, but not sure how to do it Julielangford (talk) 08:53, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

  Usual practise is to let both of them "compete" if there are users supporting an alternative. If both versions end up fulfilling normal requitrements, the version with the largest number of supports wins. If you decide to upload a noise reduced version yourself, you can either upload it as a new version of your original, or under a new file name. I would recommend the latter solution as otherwise it is a mess to figure out which revision of an image with a given file name a reviewer was voted on. --Slaunger (talk) 21:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

•  Support--ComputerHotline (talk) 08:57, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

  In refactoring the nomination page I assumed youur support goes to the original. Please move your vote if I have misinterpreted that. --Slaunger (talk) 21:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

•  Comment Thanks for the info about the best way to upload my own noise reduced version. I have now created it and uploaded it, but how do I add it here? Should I just replace the original file name on this one, or add it under yours below as a new entry? I would like to add it here at some point, as I spent quite a long time over the edit, making sure that noise was reduced only on the background, to preserve the detail of the bird - so the feedback would be really useful. Julielangford (talk) 10:33, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

  I think that adding it as another edit to choose from below as you have done is the right way to do it. --Slaunger (talk) 13:26, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Yann (talk) 17:03, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

noise reduced/sharpened edit, not featured

•  Support --Slaunger (talk) 21:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
  •  Neutral I would not mind this edit as an FP, but I think the creators own edit below is slightly better. Thus, I move my support to that edit. --Slaunger (talk) 13:39, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Slaunger's edit I actually think the water in the background looks really cool. -- JovanCormac 05:54, 1 August 2009 (UTC) Julie's below is a little better yet. -- JovanCormac 15:39, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
  •  Neutral Slaunger's edit is definitely FP quality. I forsake it only for one that is even better. -- JovanCormac 15:45, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose The above image is not Slaunger edit but even Slaunger edit still has some noise and a red line on the feather.--Two+two=4 (talk) 23:11, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
  • OOps. It is now the correct photo which is shown. Thanks for noticing. --Slaunger (talk) 06:41, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment Regarding noise reduction, there is deliberately some noise left. You have to have some noise to keep the texture and a natural reproduction of surfaces in a photo. Whenever you apply a noise filter you also remove information, and I am normally reluctant to do so. However, when there is noise in a smooth surface as in the background of this image, noise reduction can normally be applied without loosing too much information. It could certainly have been done better though. One of the most evident ways it could be done better was by masking the background and only apply a (more agressive) filter there. However, the edititon of Noiseware I have is a standalone version, where masking cannot be done, so it is applied globally in this case. --Slaunger (talk) 06:41, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Slaunger's edit - as JovanCormac Downtowngal (talk) 01:28, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 2 neutral => not featured. Yann (talk) 17:04, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Noise Reduced Version 2, featured

•  Support --Julielangford (talk) 12:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
•  Info Masked out main subject to preserve detail then applied noise reduction on mainly blue channel of the background, but also a small amount overall to the water. Julielangford (talk) 11:23, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment I think it's getting a little confusing now... 3 versions to vote on! I have examined both noise edits carefully, and think that Julie's is indeed better. So I propose we merge those edits into one candidate, and give people the choice between original and Julie's edit. -- JovanCormac 12:39, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
  • It happens quite often that there are several versions to choose from at FPC and I do not think it is particularly confusing. I have of course the option of withdrawing my edit (which I may indeed do, haven't decided yet), but it is really up to the nominator of an edit to withdraw it. If you find Julies edit is better you should just support it and consider changing the vote for my edit to neutral or oppose depending on how you feel about it. --Slaunger (talk) 13:37, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
    • I agree in priciple, but my fear is that this beautiful picture might not get promoted at all if the votes are "split in three". -- JovanCormac 15:38, 2 August 2009 (UTC) Moved my vote to Julie's as you suggested. -- JovanCormac 15:38, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
      • Yes,you are somewhat correct that this is an inherent danger in the process. The problem is that there aren't many alternatives, unless you want even more confusion figuring out exactly which version which user has voted on. But maybe it would be worthwhile mentioning how other version of a nomination should be handled in the guidelines. For instance the nominator could actively post to the user talk pages of users who have voted or commented on the nomination page to ask them to also consider new edits. Also the nomination period could be reset whenever a new version is nominated to give more time. Only problem is that it ends up at the button of the page, where only a few users see it. The best strategy is of course to make sure the first version you nominate is optimal such that editing is not needed. Commons:Photography critiques can be used to get feedback prior to nomination as well, although that page is not as active as one could wish for...--Slaunger (talk) 23:04, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment Well, the feature is not actually that important, but the feedback is. Because of the feedback on this image, I have managed to create a much finer photograph than the original, for which I am truly grateful to contributers. A feature of course, would be a fabulous bonus :) The critique given on my other photograph below has also been useful, and I am now considering a crop to remove the left monkey, so, this page is definitely proving valuable to me. Julielangford (talk) 11:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment Agreed JovanCormac, yes, it's very confusing, and please accept my apologies for making it so. I find the feedback here so valuable though, and I like to act on it if it is within my capabilities, so I thought it worthwhile uploading the edit, for further critique. Julielangford (talk) 13:14, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

  I do not think you need to apologize at all. This process is quite normal and you are doing exactly what a dedicated creator and image editor should do IMO at FPC; take criticism on board, and try to address it if you agree and fix it is within your capabilities. --Slaunger (talk) 13:37, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

•  Support I think the background in our edits are equally good. However, the fact that you have used a mask makes the subject stand out as slightly more detailed and with a more natural texture as compared to my edit. Nice work. --Slaunger (talk) 13:37, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Julie's edit. It's a little more detailed on the beak than the other one. -- JovanCormac 15:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
•  Support —kallerna™ 11:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Excellent. Yann (talk) 18:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Böhringer (talk) 19:47, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
•  Support, Tintero (talk) 19:28, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Yann (talk) 17:05, 9 August 2009 (UTC)