Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Polar Bear with its tongue sticking out.jpg

File:Polar Bear with its tongue sticking out.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jul 2015 at 16:38:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Polar Bear with its tongue sticking out.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Polar Bear with its tongue sticking out.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
•  Info created by Christopher Michel - uploaded by User:FlickreviewR 2 and nominated (proposed by User:Russavia on irc) by -- The Photographer (talk) 16:38, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
•  Support -- The Photographer (talk) 16:38, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
•  Support -- Nikhil (talk) 17:16, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
•  Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 22:49, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
•  Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:16, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
•  Comment That's an unexpectedly tough one for me. The subject certainly has lots of "wow", it is nicely framed and exposed well. At 100%, the background looks very grainy. That's unlikely to be sensor noise (ISO 100, 1/1000 sec), so I'd suspect that it's due to quite aggressive sharpening. But that's at around 36 MPix and barely visible (if at all) at screen size. The blue looks almost too blue to be true, but it seems that ice can actually look like that. And then there's quite a bit of vignetting – not sure if I like it. --El Grafo (talk) 14:16, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

 Done @El Grafo: Thanks!, please, let me know if it is done :) --The Photographer (talk) 17:00, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

@The Photographer: Sorry for the late reply: Now that the vignetting is gone, it looks much better from afar, but some details in the snow have been lost. Concerning the sharpening artifacts, I'm not sure if countering over-processing with even more processing is the right thing to do as you're losing information. The other voters seem OK with that though, so I guess i'm gonna stay  Neutral on this one. --El Grafo (talk) 09:01, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

The lost information is simply noise (sharpening artifacts because a bit aggressive sharpening), a non destructive noise selectively applied. On the main subject (the bear) was not applied any noise reduction filter. I respect your position neutral vote. Thank you for your comments. --The Photographer (talk) 09:10, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that you spared the animal from noise reduction (though I think I saw a bit of lost detail at its throat). Concerning the background, well, that's extremely difficult for me to describe. Those sharpening artifacts are different from sensor noise in that they are not simply random but based on something that was there, and even the dramatically exaggerated oversharpened data still contains a bit of that something. If you de-noise that, you will also lose a bit more of that something. Imagine what happens if you repeat that cycle a few times: sharpen → de-noise → sharpen → de-noise … --El Grafo (talk) 10:12, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

 Done I have added the details of the throat. Yes, I agree with you, there exists some kind of information right now, for me is imperceptible, but in the future any computer software could recover and make visible details without noise. It's good to know we have a photo history, someone can always do a better job. I respect your view, but I believe that the current picture (the latest version) is considerably better than the second version, discuss which data on noise is somewhat controversial and hypothetical based on some kind of detail currently there is more than just noise, however, this is just my humble opinion. I honestly prefer never apply noise reduction unless it is absolutely necessary, you should always have a vision for the future, in the future someone can always do better, with possibly more intelligent software. In this case, I thought to apply noise reduction only in areas where the depth of field can not focus. Thanks --The Photographer (talk) 11:56, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

•  Support -- Pofka (talk) 17:47, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
•  Support Kruusamägi (talk) 02:48, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
•  Support the new version. --Yann (talk) 09:07, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
•  Support --Kadellar (talk) 12:03, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
•  Support Jacopo Werther ^iγ∂ψ=mψ 08:45, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
•  Support Cold. --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 08:57, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
•  Support --Halavar (talk) 12:57, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 21:08, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Mammals