Commons:Featured picture candidates/Archive:File:Container Ship.jpg

File:Container Ship.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Mar 2011 at 11:32:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Container Ship.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Container Ship.jpg

1872

2273

144

99

4459

2628

Stitching error

2252

1058

131

118

4459

2628

Another stitching error

2631

980

100

167

4459

2628

and another one

2854

1526

89

89

4459

2628

and another one

1989

1778

123

245

4459

2628

stitching error (right one hopefully)

•  Info c/u/n by Muhammad Mahdi Karim|]] -- Muhammad (talk) 11:32, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
•  Support -- Muhammad (talk) 11:32, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose Stitching error. Please also declare composite (if it is one) with the description. W.S. 14:15, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
•  Support The stitching error is so minor that it is indeet irrelevant. The picture is sharp, rich of details, nice composed. Reviewing FP does not mean counting pixels. --Wladyslaw (talk) 15:15, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Stitching errors are never irrelevant. The picture is indeed sharp, actually significantly oversharpened, which renders halos all over the place. W.S. 15:25, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Stitching errors that scarcely attract attention and do not affect the image even when your looking at 100 % are fore sure irrelevant. Would be interessting to see your photographs, Mr. Perfect. --Wladyslaw (talk) 19:18, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
      • Let's not confuse things: there is absolutely no requirement for criticism to be backed up by own skills as creator. The above comment sounds like an author calling on literary critics to demonstrate they can write better before they comment on his/her work, or an athlete telling his trainer "if this is not fast enough show me how fast you are Mr Perfect". Ridiculous. --ELEKHH^T 21:31, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose I have noticed 2 Stitching errors. --JovianEye (talk) 19:14, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

• I've noticed a third one ;) - Benh (talk) 19:33, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

•  Oppose All per WS. And no wow anyways. Oh and I've shrinked the image on the FPC page a little. I see no reason why that one had to be rendered this big. - Benh (talk) 19:16, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Why should be a picture of the Eiffel Tower be rendered so big? --Wladyslaw (talk) 19:18, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Don't know if you're talking about this or not, but if so, I agree with you. But it is a portrait picture and at that time, the nomination template set the width to something like 350px by default, and most didn't bother changing this. I didn't nominate it anyways, so... - Benh (talk) 19:32, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
•  Comment the image has the potential to be a FP imo. I like the lighting and the composition isn't bad. If the stitching errors were fixed and the you would upload a version which isn't oversharpened like now, I will support. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 20:39, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
•  Comment --The stitching errors in the superstructures aren't irrelevant imo, and as said above, if the image looks particularly sharp... it's because it has been oversharpened during post-processing, leaving an unpleasant bright fringe along the wires for example. Sting (talk) 23:56, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
•  Comment That's the problem with being generous. I offer you a high resolution image and you start nit-picking. At lower resolutions most of the "faults" would not even be visible. --Muhammad (talk) 00:27, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

• You are not this generous, you systematically provide downscaled versions of your pictures. Why having to go through potentially painful process of stitching a non wide FOV picture if it's to end with something not even as big as the native resolution of your camera ? Or you only have a tele in your gear ?- Benh (talk)

• This is close to 12mp from my cam of 10mp. --Muhammad (talk) 11:25, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

• OOps sorry, I thought you owned a 450D. But my point still stands otherwise. - Benh (talk) 12:57, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

• To that I say that golden light does not last long and since my tele lens was attached, I didn't bother to change. --Muhammad (talk) 14:15, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

• Then you could share us the 20mpix version of it ;) Well I don't push you, and actually, you don't really have to justify. - Benh (talk) 16:37, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

• I wanted to. Unfortunately my computer could not stitch a larger version and failed to save it every time I tried so I just stitched at this res, cropped out the black space and uploaded --Muhammad (talk) 17:02, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

• • I have fixed all stitching errors on my computer version except for the one alleged to be on the containers. Can't seem to see it. --Muhammad (talk) 00:51, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

• I've pointed you to the actual error I meant. Sorry ! - Benh (talk) 08:58, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

• Sorry, still can't see anything --Muhammad (talk) 11:25, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

• Look closer at the lowest container (blue one, lower edge) - Benh (talk) 12:57, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

• Are you referring to the creaminess or the blue container? --Muhammad (talk) 14:15, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

• I'm not sure to get you but, I'm just talking about the lower right corner of the CMA CGM container, it really has a stitching error. - Benh (talk) 16:37, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

• Your pointer was in the wrong place I think. I see it now. Edit tomorrow morn. Thanks benh --Muhammad (talk) 17:02, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

• The point is not about your “generosity”. Making a high definition image by stitching images is many times a good idea and well appreciated here, but if you want to do so, and specially indicate it as FPC here, you can/should/must understand that this image should be almost without defaults. Missing one or two parallax problems happens, but here some of them are really obvious, so don't be surprised with the votes. Neither desperate with your work. Also, stitching photographs together results usually in a high definition image which would need few sharpening (particularly if the final size is reduced like here), but here it's simply too much and I think it's obvious. These well visible bright lines along the wires simply don't exist in reality.

These considerations above are not only for you/this image, but general : please guys, before including one of your images here as FPC take a careful look at them, not only general but in detail at full size in order to correct all the visible problems. Some FPC here are simply no-go types because of their obvious lack of general quality, lighting, stitching or post-processing problems. This to avoid you surprises or deceptions and loss of time to everybody. So be realistic: if you want a quality label for your image(s), there should not be any obvious flaws. Sting (talk) 20:46, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

•  Oppose Few stitching errors indeed. Strange halos, as depicted by Sting, along the vertical wires, some ghosts on the left crane. But FP potential, per Carschten. And continue to be generous, please.--Jebulon (talk) 00:29, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
•  Conditional Support Given that the fixed version from Muhammad will be uploaded.--Snaevar (talk) 10:03, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
•  Nomination Withdrawn. I will put up an edited version later as a new nomination --Muhammad (talk) 07:15, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /IdLoveOne (talk) 10:24, 27 February 2011 (UTC)