Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:1 zhangjiajie huangshizhai wulingyuan panorama 2012.jpg

File:1 zhangjiajie huangshizhai wulingyuan panorama 2012.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Oct 2014 at 15:35:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by Chensiyuan - nominated by Arion -- ArionEstar (talk) 15:35, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ArionEstar (talk) 15:35, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Impressive --Arturo de Frias Marques (talk)
Support --Qwertz1894 (talk) 19:08, 22 October 2014 (UTC) Not eligible to vote. J e e 07:31, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow. (And the resolution ...) --XRay ^talk 18:14, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 20:11, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Info Please remove the dust spots (see annotations) from the sky! -- Tobi 87 (talk) 13:10, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kikos (talk) 10:21, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressive subject and resolution. The post-processing of the image isn't perfect but the result is still exceptional enough for FP. Would appreciate some information on the image page about camera/lens, number of frames, software used, etc -- these things all help our educational mission. -- Colin (talk) 10:31, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Past-processing not perfect, Colin? There are extreme purple CAs on the background silhouette and all around the trees on the rocks. There are also artefacts of oversharpening at the sky area. I am missing a clear compositional idea - surely the rocks are impressive but imho arranged in a random way. --Tuxyso (talk) 13:16, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tuxyso I am aware of the CA and noise and other imperfections at 100%, but this is also a 88MP image. If I stick it into IrfanView and resize it to 50% with a little sharpening I get a 22MP image that would rival anything a pro Canon DSLR can produce even with the best glass. Are you punishing the guy for uploading the full size image rather than heavily downsizing? Sure he could improve on this - but I don't know what software he's using or if he can afford anything better. Perhaps the camera/lens isn't that good. The rocks are arranged in a row and I think you'll have to have a word with God about his "random" arrangement :-). I've no idea if there is a better viewpoint but this one does show the formation in good detail, along with pleasant hills in the background - taken at a time of day/lighting when those hills are attractive silhouettes. -- Colin (talk) 15:28, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Colin, I have no complaints with stitchings which are not tack sharp at 100% due to non-downscaling. But a non-downscaled image is no excuse for inattentive processing. Sharpening artefacts and strong CAs are serious concerns especially if we speak of an FPC. My comment on the composition and its randomness was related to the way the rocks were photographed. --Tuxyso (talk) 16:15, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

* Oppose Anyway, a picture with a so big amount of dust spots cannot be a FP.--Jebulon (talk) 16:45, 25 October 2014 (UTC)--Jebulon (talk) 12:58, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have let the creator know, so I hope he can upload a version with these issues fixed. -- Colin (talk) 18:35, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Baresi F (talk) 20:19, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Info Jebulon I uploaded a new version: without dust spots and reduced CA. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 12:10, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. Opposition removed.--Jebulon (talk) 12:58, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I cannot see an improvement with the purple CAs (image cache purged and reloaded the image) --Tuxyso (talk) 15:45, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Bei einer Ansicht von 200% sehe ich auch das Problem, nicht jedoch bei 100%. Das ist marginal, nicht der Rede Wert. Eines möchte ich jedoch nicht verschweigen: die letzte winzige ab 150% sichtbare CA bekomme ich nicht herausgerechnet. Das müsste schon der Upöoader bei den Einzelbildern durchführen. Aber es ist: nur eine unbedeutende Winzigkeit. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 15:54, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Probably we look at different files. I do not review images at 200% view. Take a simple look on this 100% crop - these purple CAs are all around the mountains in the background and don't tell me these are "marginal". --Tuxyso (talk) 16:06, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - Purple??? I see a small green/cyan surface around the mountans. We see two different files?!? --Alchemist-hp (talk) 17:03, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Surely, green, not purple. --Tuxyso (talk) 18:27, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The chromatic aberrations are quite notable especially on the right but also on the left. They are possible to fix. I wonder if the white balance is ok. The photo seems quite... yellowish. Is it like that for real? --Ximonic (talk) 16:04, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Gra phi um 18:18, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /J e e 03:26, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:1 zhangjiajie huangshizhai wulingyuan panorama 2012.jpg

File:1 zhangjiajie huangshizhai wulingyuan panorama 2012.jpg, featured[edit]

Navigation menu

Search