Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:St Michael's Mount II5302 x 2982.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:St Michael's Mount II5302 x 2982.jpg, not featured[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Nov 2014 at 14:12:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info created by Fuzzypiggy - uploaded by Fuzzypiggy - nominated by MichaelMaggs -- MichaelMaggs (talk) 14:12, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
This image has just just been awarded first prize in the Wiki Loves Monuments UK contest 2014.
Support -- MichaelMaggs (talk) 14:12, 7 November 2014 (UTC)- Support --Pugilist (talk) 14:30, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Oppose Very nice at a small size but unsharp or overprocessed at full res. --Kadellar (talk) 15:22, 7 November 2014 (UTC)- Support clearly overprocessed (noise reduction) compensated by the composition/mood, also the size make it acceptable IMO -- Christian Ferrer Talk / Im. / Fav. 15:51, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
- Support --Hubertl (talk) 16:34, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry but image quality is too poor owing to overprocessing. Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:00, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose Per opposers, sorry.--Jebulon (talk) 19:13, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose per others. — Julian H.✈ (talk/files) 19:51, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Comment A crop could help remove the overprocessed area? ArionEstar (talk) 22:10, 7 November 2014 (UTC)- Support Ok, looking at the picture, rather than the pixels... We've got excellent evening light highlighting just the right side of the castle and picking out the texture of the wooded island hill. The sky is colourful with interesting clouds, reflected in the still water -- which is still enough to reflect the island and display the sand and seaweed. The island is positioned well within the frame with a leading line towards it, helped by the couple walking towards the subject. The wide angle lens, chosen aperture (f/11), and focus distance ensure front-to-back depth of field at the expense of any one portion being pixel-peeping sharp. The overall exposure is just right for an evening sunset. Ok, so putting my pixel-peeping hat on... there's a little green CA on the left of the island and a halo between the land and sky that is either over-sharpening or an imprecise mask. There's a fairly obvious gradient filter on the sky which I personally am not too keen on but is very common practice. At 100% there isn't a whole lot of fine detail, but this is 15.8MP so I can downsize if I like my pixels sharp and this would easily print A4 to high quality. It's a great picture. -- Colin (talk) 22:52, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
- Support Yann (talk) 10:32, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
- Support per Colin --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:08, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
- Support Wow clearly mitigates minor quality issues. -- Slaunger (talk) 22:08, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
- Support I like it, good composition and lighting, great. Jules Grandgagnage (talk) 08:27, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose overprocessed, to much noise reduced. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 11:09, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Kadellar. Sadly, the technical quality seems to have very minor weight on WLM. --A.Savin 16:04, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
- WLM people probably say it is sad we pixel peep at FPC. Saffron Blaze (talk) 23:30, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
- I think neither forum/competition gets it right. A.Savin is right: technical quality doesn't seem to have any weight at WLM, producing winners that cannot be printed or displayed in a gallery without bringing shame. But I think this one image is the wrong one with which to conduct our regular WLM bashing and in doing so makes us look like we are unable to see the picture for the pixels. -- Colin (talk) 08:35, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- Support Agree with Saffron (and I myself used to pixel peep too much) but it's true that the processing is awful. Hope author sees us and can reprocess and go lighter on NR. Other than that... a beautiful place, superb lighting, very nice composition with the tourist adding some little context. They all mitigate the processing to me. - Benh (talk) 12:21, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose Excellent mood, but sadly overprocessed. --Ivar (talk) 13:13, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose I love this image as a whole for the reasons Colin and Benh mentioned above. I also don't have a problem with most of the processing choices and could probably even live with the overprocessed trees on the island. What I can't live with is that thin bright strip running along the horizon, since it's visible even in the thumb of the nomination page in some areas around the castle. --El Grafo (talk) 16:00, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose Very beautiful; this is the type of image I'd be willing to accept some lack of resolution for, but my limit is that it must look perfect at 2 MP. Unfortunately, I can still see the effects of NR on the island, which also has large areas of blackness. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:20, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose Impressive shot with a lot of wow, but the island looks like a watercolour painting (suffered from NR I fancy), and the foreground objects on the right are entirely oversharpened. --Kreuzschnabel 18:56, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
- Support -- Ram-Man 17:32, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 11 support, 10 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /-- Christian Ferrer Talk / Im. / Fav. 17:56, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
