Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sillustani, Perú, 2015-08-01, DD 108-112.JPG

File:Sillustani, Perú, 2015-08-01, DD 108-112.JPG, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Dec 2015 at 11:22:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Sillustani, Perú, 2015-08-01, DD 108-112.JPG Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sillustani, Perú, 2015-08-01, DD 108-112.JPG

60

1163

15627

160

16148

4011

According to the hill on the left, horizon must be lower than this. — Julian H.^✈ 11:59, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

10679

1123

1182

160

16148

4011

The waterline here indicates that the horizon must be higher than this. — Julian H.^✈ 12:00, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Panoramas
•  Info Panoramic view of the Lake Umayo and the Sillustani burial ground (see the 2 towers on the right) on the right. Sillustani is a pre-Incan cemetery with tombs (chullpas) built above ground in tower-like structures housing the remains of nobles. The place was built by the Aymara, that were conquered by the Inca in the 15th century. All by me, Poco² 11:22, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
•  Support -- Poco² 11:22, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
•  Support --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 12:55, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
•  Neutral Really impressive, but there is a severe stitching error and a small dust spot. See notes. Nevertheless a great work! --Hubertl 13:04, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
•  Comment Very nice place, but it needs some work - stitching errors and noise. --Ivar (talk) 13:17, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
• @Iifar and Hubertl: :  New version Poco² 14:08, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
•  Support Excellent view. Very good --Rjcastillo (talk) 14:15, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
•  Comment The technical issues are corrected now, but why are the dark areas so dark now? Much more than at the first version! Because of the noise? This doesn´t bother me really. --Hubertl 14:23, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

  Sorry Hubertl, you are right, something went wrong in the work flow process, a middle version got lost. Now should look better Poco² 14:57, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

   Comment @Poco a poco: Right bottom corner has still elements, which doesn't belong there. Noise on the water is still notable. --Ivar (talk) 15:56, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

   Oppose for now, because of obvious cloning errors on both bottom corners. Did you use cloning to fix cropped corners after stitching? Creating landscape with cloning is a hell of a task! Cropping those corners out is one solution to fix this issue. Also noise reduction in the middle is too strong. --Ivar (talk) 18:16, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

  I don't understand your comment and oppose 2 hours later. I cannot respond inmediately to comments or suggestions. I have uploaded a new version with improval of the cloned areas in the left and right bottoms. I don't see a big issue with the noising or denoising, to be honest. Poco² 19:29, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

   Comment Noise is a minor issue here. Left bottom corner is almost ok now, but right corner has notable signes of cloning and the center bottom has notable stitching error (notes added). I'm sorry, but I can't support image with those errors. --Ivar (talk) 19:36, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

  I didn't complain about the direction of your vote, I had the impression that you expected quick response to your comment and opposed because you didn't get it. I think that both bottoms are ok now, and by the way, those areas are not really the areas I would focus on in this kind of picture. IMHO for this picture it shouldn't be crucial whether 2 bushes look similar. Poco² 20:41, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

   Comment This not about two similar bushes, but visible cloning marks, which imho a FP should not have (for example on the right corner you have cloned a stone on the turf and that looks peculiar) --Ivar (talk) 06:44, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

•  Support Yes, its better now! I´m glad that I can support it. --Hubertl 15:05, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

  Hubertl: you have voted twice...Poco² 19:30, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

•  Support impressive landscape! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 15:09, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
•  Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 17:29, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
•  Support -- Pofka (talk) 19:25, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
•  Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 20:09, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
•  Support Great composition. INeverCry 22:07, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
•  Support Errors were fixed. Daniel Case (talk) 02:24, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
•  Support --Kikos (talk) 07:48, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
•  Support --Tremonist (talk) 14:05, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
•  Comment I know I'm a bit late and I won't oppose, but the horizon seems higher on the right than on the left. — Julian H.^✈ 11:04, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Julian, I'm not sure about a tilt. Could you please add a note to make clear what are you using as reference? Poco² 10:57, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

I tried. The hill on the very left indicates that the horizon must be lower than the peakground. The waterline in the background on the right indicates that the horzion must he higher than the shoreline. But the shoreline on the right is higher than the top of the hill on the left. It's not an enormous amount though, so it can't be too bad. It might not be tilted and just a bit wavy. — Julian H.^✈ 12:02, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Actually,  Support, it's definitely worthy of FP status either way. — Julian H.^✈ 12:04, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:16, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Panoramas