Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Roman Infantry 1.jpg

Image:Roman Infantry 1.jpg, not featured

Voting period ends on 17 Dec 2008 at 20:51:03

•  Info created by David Friel - uploaded by Dorieo21 - nominated by Suetonius -- Suetonius (talk) 20:51, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
•  Support -- Suetonius (talk) 20:51, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose Sadly too much noise on the full-resolution photo. →Diti the penguin — 21:52, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose noise and border should be removed --Simonizer (talk) 22:13, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

result: 1 support, 2 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of the 5th day). Benh (talk) 21:08, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Image:Roman Infantry Edit.jpg, not featured

•  Info created by David Friel - edited and uploaded by --Lošmi (talk) 01:56, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
•  Comment - I removed a lot of noise, used some color balance, and removed the border. --Lošmi (talk) 01:56, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
•  Support --Simonizer (talk) 08:34, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
•  Support (Varcos (talk) 09:45, 9 December 2008 (UTC))
•  Cool! --Mr. Mario (talk) 15:14, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
•  Support - ChrisDHDR 17:16, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
•  Support good work --Böhringer (talk) 22:05, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
•  Support, decent enough. --Aqwis (talk) 22:06, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose Sorry ,but the artefacts especially on the face are really too strong. In general a good shot though. --AngMoKio (talk) 08:21, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose Over 9000 saturation, Oversharpened, Border and Noise. Noodle snacks (talk) 12:38, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

• What the heck! There is a border!?!? --Mr. Mario (talk) 04:42, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

•  Support --Karelj (talk) 15:29, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
•  Support --Suetonius (talk) 17:09, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose -- Interesting perspective, but technically low quality: it looks as if the whole photograph had crinkles Manuel R. (talk) 17:43, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per previous, thumbnail is really great, full size is scary --Pom² (talk) 23:04, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose - Terrible quality, not mitigated by the fine composition -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:15, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose - Quality. Look at the artefacts in the neck area, to take just one example. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:29, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose Quality. Look at the artefacts at the left side. It's a shame if you look at the thumbnail. --Herrick (talk) 19:36, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose Neutral I'm sorry, but the noise reduction method you use is... distracting. The composition is wonderful however. --J.smith (talk) 23:41, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Change to neutral - the noise is bad at 100%, but can't be seen at more reasonable review sizes. J.smith (talk) 21:40, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
•  Comment I believe on a regular photo print it will look great and artefacts aren't visible --Richard Bartz (talk) 00:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, it would look great a postcard-sized print. J.smith (talk) 03:37, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree with you, but isn't this true for nearly all noise problems? --AngMoKio (talk) 08:53, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Thats why noise shouldn't be a problem @ 6 Mpx. --Richard Bartz (talk) 11:43, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
      • I started to write a rebuttal, but I think I've talked myself into agreeing with you, to a degree. Scaled to the same size as my monitor I can't see the noise at all. That means it would (likely) look fine even printed at 8x11. --J.smith (talk) 21:40, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

result: 8 support, 7 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Pom² (talk) 14:32, 19 December 2008 (UTC)