Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:View of San Francisco at night from Bernal Heights 2016 03.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:View of San Francisco at night from Bernal Heights 2016 03.jpg, not featured[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Nov 2016 at 23:34:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#United_States
Info created by dllu - uploaded by dllu - nominated by Dllu -- dllu (t,c) 23:34, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Support -- dllu (t,c) 23:34, 5 November 2016 (UTC)- dllu (t,c) Put decrase highlights, remove CA, and lower temperature for some degrees. --Mile (talk) 06:40, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Done I have overwritten the file with a new version with your suggested changes. dllu (t,c) 18:46, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
- Support--Morning (talk) 16:51, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
- Support but agree with Mile that WB should be slightly bluer. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:50, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Comment - I'm inclined to support, but please try de-noising the sky. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:08, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
- Comment This level of noise is normal for this type of photo. Please compare against existing Featured Pictures such as File:A14 Rheintalautobahn.JPG, File:1 rocinha night 2014 panorama.jpg. dllu (t,c) 07:25, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Question - I'm not really inclined to compare right now (though I may do so tomorrow). But noise can be one element in whether I find a photo sufficiently wowing or not. So instead, I'm interested to know: what would happen if you tried to de-noise the photo a little? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:27, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - Because, to elaborate a bit further, I don't think FP is really about what's normal, but about what's the best it can be. Is this the best it can be, or could it be improved? If it can be improved, it should be improved, right? I think so. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:29, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
- Fair enough, I'll try denoising the sky as soon as I have time. dllu (t,c) 06:07, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
- Done the sky has been aggressively denoised now. dllu (t,c) 07:03, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
- Weak support I wish it could be more symmetrical, but while you can edit the photo you can't edit the city (well, nature can). Otherwise well done. Daniel Case (talk) 06:02, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
- Comment I agree, the bottom left building is an eyesore especially. dllu (t,c) 06:07, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
- Weak Support - My feeling is that your edits definitely improved the picture, but whereas there was a lot of noise before, now I see banding in the sky. However, I just can't ignore how beautiful the picture is at full-page size, and so even for that alone it probably merits a feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:47, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
- Comment The banding is just because, with standard 8 bit per channel colour, there are only 255 shades of blue. Of course, noise gets rid of this effect but I've removed all the noise. You can either have slight noise, or subtle banding. With my recently calibrated sRGB monitors, the banding is almost imperceptible anyway. dllu (t,c) 21:58, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
- Comment I suppose I could reprocess the image with a greater bit depth. Maybe I'll do that after work. dllu (t,c) 22:01, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Oppose I was neutral with the noise in the sky but I oppose the version with the sky denoised, it's far too much IMO Christian Ferrer (talk) 14:00, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
