Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Dublin Stephen's Green-44 edit.jpg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

File: Dublin Stephen's Green-44.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Oct 2016 at 00:26:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

aerial view of St. Stephen's Green parc
This is NOT the case Daniel, (no pun intended) many drones now carry DSLR's. Fact is this shot was done with a Phantom, those have small chips (same size as a go pro) yet the Inspire 1 Drone I fly for Television Production runs a fantastic Micro 4/3rds camera that DJI refers to as a X5 and its Large Platform Drone, carries DSLR cameras. The dif is cost, you can Phantom for under a thousand yet my production Inspire Pro rig is well over 10k, it goes up only when I am getting paid :). Is that going to be the standard of entry for Aerial Photos on commons "if you don't have the 10k to play, go away" seems a bit over the top to me..... --WPPilot (talk) 13:23, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I do believe it will not be long until drones can carry DSLR cameras and/or same will be designed to be usable on drones. We can wait ... Daniel Case (talk) 03:05, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think if the uploader had given us the 6MP version and told you it was taken by a DSLR, nobody would be surprised. At 6MP the CA at the top and left edge is minor. Compare this current FPC candidate which is a soft 6MP image taken with a 36MP D800, and doing well at FPC -- because we punish those who upload full sized image and fall for those who downsize to 40% to escape pixel criticism! Wrt aerial photography, I'd be interested in User:WPPilot's professional views. Compare this failed nomination. Having a DSLR is absolutely no guarantee against the critics and pixel peeping at FPC :-) You need luck with the light, weather, foliage/season, stability and careful framing of a subject like this. Can anyone point to a better aerial photo of a city garden square, anywhere, never mind just on Commons? My guess is this sort of imagery is technically challenging, with a low success rate, and that none of us reviewers really know from personal experience what quality to expect. Most images I found online were thumbnails, whereas this is 12MP -- Colin (talk) 08:04, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no problem with the pic per se, but I expect the same basic CA removal and noise reduction when possible as we do of any FPC. If these very fixable issues are fixed, I will happily change my vote to 'Support'. Hence the "as it is". cart-Talk 11:04, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose per other opposers. --Ivar (talk) 07:58, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Dronepicr its seems very unsharp, like lens was dirty or something. Actually this image quality isnt so high even for drone, but compo and idea is good. I am sure its more Valuable photo. --Mile (talk) 09:13, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support We don't have many drone photos (tell me if I'm wrong), and this is one of the greatest drone photos I've seen. --★ Poké95 10:04, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose per others --Uoaei1 (talk) 10:30, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 10:42, 21 October 2016 (UTC)--Alchemist-hp (talk) 07:46, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --WPPilot (talk) 13:34, 21 October 2016 (UTC) I agree with Pokéfan95, as the single largest contributor of aerial photos to this site, I think this is a wonderful and well framed shot. Many of you are IMHO being too critical... What is the barrier to entry here? According to ECIF on this shot it was done with the DJI FC300X, (Phantom 3 pro) that is a 1500 dollar investment when you fly (I have one myself) and one would think that this SHOULD be able to establish a aerial photo FP, using the DJI Phantom pro as its chipset is the same size as a "Go Pro" and we have a number of FP's that were created using the Go Pro camera... Another thing to consider BTW is the cost of Insurance too. A phantom is about 600 a year, while a pro level drone running a DSLR is about 3500, a year and that is my rate as a 30 year multi engine licensed pilot with no accident history......[reply]
  •  Comment - The test here is whether a candidate photo is one of the very best on the site. That calls for having very high standards, or if you like, being very critical. And I don't see what the cost of insurance has to do with that. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:26, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  CommentIt is about "Cost of Entry" originally the FP designation was designed to allow people with a simple Cel Phone to be able to take a have a photo that was worthy of FP, it would seem that is no longer the case. It was mentioned above that Aerial Drone "do not" fly DSLR's. Almost ALL of my aerial photos were done from my planes, while flying them @ 100 to 300mph give or take. The critical assessments you previously offered was that we can do better, my retort is who is going to pay? I have suggested a Drone "Group" to help this process move along but, just as Colin said above this is a wonderful photo and we are going to have to give some leeway, or simply exclude drone photos unless the photographer has the 10 to 20 thousand dollars required to meet your overly high standards such as my production rig that ONLY flies, when I am being paid to fly it as the risk of loss it too great that is why I have the other drones.. Do you have a example of a GOOD aerial photo that YOU have taken so the rest of us can see what it is you think is FP quality, and please do tell what the system was that you used to take it with. A DJI Phantom line should be able to do this, its chipset is the same on on Go Pro's, my concern is that we "price" just about every contributor out of this field due to the quality standards that you are implying. Featured Picture is about more then just the technical quality, educational value as well as difficulty should be considered and weighed in upon before a conclusion is made simply based upon a technical imperfection. Thanks.....--WPPilot (talk) 17:09, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment - I don't submit my own photos to FPC because they're nowhere remotely close to featurable. If anyone would like to argue that means I should refrain from participating here, I'd have no problem with having that argument somewhere else, such as on Commons talk:Featured picture candidates, where we could discuss revisions in the qualifications of FPC voters and anything else related to that. We have featured a couple of cellphone pics. Those were cases in which enough of us considered the composition to be great enough and the quality good enough, despite inevitable limitations. But I think I remember from previous discussions that cellphone pics generally, as of yet, aren't considered by a consensus at FPC to be of good enough quality to be featured, and I believe the couple that passed were regarded by all "support" voters as exceptions that prove the rule (whereas the opposers still didn't consider the photos technically good enough). I definitely agree with you that technical quality is not the only consideration at FPC. Composition is a very strong consideration, and educational/encyclopedic/historical (etc.) value also can figure in voting decisions. It's understandable that different people rate these criteria as more or less important, in context. The upshot in this particular case is that I definitely understand your point of view and respect it, but while I don't exclude supporting drone pics at all and would look forward to doing so, I don't feel the novelty of the technology overrides my desire for more focus. If the result of attitudes like mine is that drone pictures currently can't be featured, I agree that that's regrettable, and I would be willing to allow some leeway in quality, but not this much. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:26, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alt[edit]

Corrected version

  •  Info @Dronepicr, Daniel Case, Ikan Kekek, Martin Falbisoner, and INeverCry: @Colin, W.carter, The Photographer, Christian Ferrer, and Iifar: @PetarM, Pokéfan95, Uoaei1, Alchemist-hp, and WPPilot: @Schmarrnintelligenz, Lošmi, Frank Schulenburg, and Ermell: I made an effort to correct the CA and add just a hair more sharpening. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:47, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support It isn't even that unsharp, in my opinion. We have one standard for easily photographed subjects like skylines, buildings with lots of breathing room, and landscape panoramas, and a lower standard which is merely "normal" here at FPC and encompasses everything from birds to regular buildings to difficult landscapes, and finally a case-by-case standard for historical images and low-light action. I think the sharpness of this image compares favorably with some of the lower-quality images that have been promoted in the second category. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:47, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Both are great, anyway. --★ Poké95 06:36, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support better ... --Alchemist-hp (talk) 07:45, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose - I appreciate your work here, but this photo is still not sharp enough for me. Of the arguments you're making, the only one that's somewhat persuasive to me is the one about historical photos. The way the analogy could be made is that 100 years ago, it wasn't possible to get the degree of clarity and detail that can be attained with very good digital equipment today, and similarly, the argument would go, it's not now possible to get really crisp digital images from a drone (or at least not possible without spending tens of thousands of dollars). However, in the case of historical photography, there was no alternative at the time for any photography, whereas now, drone photography is only one particular type of photography. This is a very good composition, but are we voting on this (a) as a photograph or (b) as a representative of drone photography? Or are we voting on this (c) as a photograph and giving a big handicap to our judging because it's a drone photograph, but without considering this specifically as an exemplar of drone photography (in the nature of a Valued Image nomination)? I'm not clear on that, but I think I've laid out three different possible standards. And I think my standard would be to vote on this as a photograph and give somewhat of a handicap to it - but not a huge one - because it's a drone photograph. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:55, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ikan, I could list the many less sharp and smaller resolution photos you have happily supported. Take this one where many others noticed her face was completely unsharp and the nominator explains the difficulty in capturing a moving dancer. Or this one where (i assume very strong NR) has created a smooth image but with no sharpness on the ice -- who cares. One doesn't have to go to the extreme of historical photos to justify unsharp images at 100%. Plenty situations compromise photography: having to use high ISO greatly reduces sharpness, moving subjects, moving cameras (think aeroplane), atmospheric conditions. Extreme wide-angle lenses and projections will have soft corners and that's just the laws of optics. We are spoiled by the sharpness of some of our downsized megapixel stitched churches or from images produced by $3000 cameras with $1000 prime lenses on them. We are also familiar with TV and web images of landscapes and sports that are actually tiny 2MP or thumbnail images and we forget that they probably look crap at 12MP never mind 36MP. Most of the images posted on popular photography sites barely fill an HD monitor (so < 2MP) yet we look at them and think they are wonderfully sharp. The standard at FP isn't that demanding and hasn't been in general. Unlike QI, FP balances wow with technical perfection. We are supposed to rise above the pixel peeping when presented with a great image. This image currently represents state-of-the-art low-height aerial photography -- I cannot find a better or sharper one anywhere. We've never judged FP by what might come in future. Unlike our churches and plants and bugs, we don't have lots of photographers doing this, and if we expect the sharpness of a Diliff interior then we won't have any such photographers participating here because they'll laugh. We are voting on whether this is among our finest images. Look at the image, not the pixels. -- Colin (talk) 11:02, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For comparison, no one objected to the sharpness when I nominated this photo for FP, the critique was all about the artistic side. The houses and cars around the church are of about the same quality as this photo. I think the distance may be about the same as well. cart-Talk 11:19, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Both of you make good points. I'm liking but not loving this photo, but I'll abstain, at least for now, and think about it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:04, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Cart, you'll need to strike "Phantom 3 Drone" from your letter to Santa this year :-(. -- Colin (talk) 12:11, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Colin, Rats... But I guess this will be the same as with fireworks here, you have to apply for a permit (and pay for it) for those by law but everyone ignores that and fire them anyway. No-one is ever fined or convicted since the police gave up on that long ago. cart-Talk 12:32, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Drone become weapon, true weapon. Saw it in action. Lets say if this drone would lost control, at this high this would kill anyone bellow. Here you need permit also. See drone accidents on youtube. We wont see long this kind of shots. --Mile (talk) 19:13, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Either one is fine with me, but this is an improvement. lNeverCry 09:03, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support per INC --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:06, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support of course. -- Colin (talk) 11:02, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Thanks King of Hearts for taking the time to fix this up. There is still some CA left, but this is acceptable. The quality is about the same as you get in horizontal pics, made by a reasonably priced camera, at this distance. cart-Talk 11:09, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support CA is almost gone, and yes We can't apply the same standard for all the cameras. Could be nice apply a different standard based on Camera model. --The Photographer 12:15, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support i created a new version, reduced noise and modify sharpness: File:Dublin aerial unedited new version.jpg -- dronepicr (talk) 13:18, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • dronepicr, I compared your new version with the other two. The colour temperature is slighly different (5,211 vs 5,628) and you have increased the noise reduction and applied a mask to the sharpening. The CA is eliminated (whereas the alt by King of Hearts is only reduced). The noise, particularly on the lake and roads is eliminated, though possibly you didn't need to apply quite as much, in order to retain as much detail as possible. You could try using the brush and some negative noise reduction on the trees and grass to exclude them from the NR and restore some (apparent) detail there. The differences (apart from colour temp) are only visible at 100% and it looks like this alt will pass, so I'm not sure it is worth fiddling more with the image and creating another alt nomination. I think your edit does demonstrate why it is best to fix issues with the raw/source file and by the image creator in preference -- the CA is better removed and adding a sharpening mask is something you can only do on the unsharpened original, not on the already sharpened JPG. -- Colin (talk) 07:19, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I hesitate to support a photo of such reduced quality merely by the fact that the camera position is so unusual. My apology to the photographer; however, the only thing that impresses me here is the stunning scenario. I see lots of CA around the white structures, the treetops are partly blurred and the figures on the pavements (maybe not only them) are unsharp or blurred. I admit its fun to walk the streets around this park but at least I get dizzy from the unsharpness. Sorry again. --AWeith (talk) 14:54, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment - Colin I edited noise and sharpness in the original raw file, NOT in jpeg. I Think it is slightly better than before. I'm wondering why there is so much negative feedback for this photo. The photo was taken with a small drone sensor, not with a dslr. In my opinion, a good photos is not always a perfect sharpened one. -- dronepicr (talk) 21:57, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • dronepicr I know you edited the raw in this copy but that one hasn't been proposed as an alt (and I think it is too late now to do so -- perhaps another nom if you feel strongly your edit is better). So it is confusing when you talk of "it is slighty better" or "this photo" as I'm not clear which of the three copies you refer to. I think your new version has too much NR -- just like one can over-sharpen one can also over-NR and we don't need to see smooth-as-plastic roads or water. There is of course a bigger debate on how much a 12+MP image needs to be sharpened given that its main use on WP is as a thumbnail (which is sharpened after downsizing automatically by MediaWiki) or could be sharpened by another re-user at the dimentions they wish to use. But most people do aim for a pleasing image on-screen at 12MP. Once everyone has high-DPI displays, some of this pixel-peeping will simply vanish. I think some of the negative comments about being "unsharp" aren't referring to post-processing sharpness, but in the clarity of detail captured by the lens/sensor. We would all love more detail, but I understand the limitations of the technology. As WPPilot explained, expecting a DSLR drone standard at FP is so fantastically expensive and risky to buy/insure/licence that it would be like expecting Hassleblad or cinema-grade photographic equipment as the base standard for FP. It's not going to happen. -- Colin (talk) 07:10, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Mile (talk) 06:47, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places#Ireland
The chosen alternative is: File:Dublin Stephen's Green-44 edit.jpg
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Dublin_Stephen%27s_Green-44_edit.jpg&oldid=224838083"