Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Iditarod Ceremonial start in Anchorage, Alaska.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:Iditarod Ceremonial start in Anchorage, Alaska.jpg, not featured[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Jun 2010 at 17:44:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info created by Frank Kovalchek - uploaded by Smooth_O - nominated by Smooth_O -- Smooth_O (talk) 17:44, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Support -- Smooth_O (talk) 17:44, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Oppose very noisy, on all dogs. --Eusebius (talk) 17:51, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
- Well of course it's noisy, packs of dogs always are! MPF (talk) 14:45, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose Great action shot, unfortunately, very noisy at ISO 1000.
- Support it's noisy, but I love the composition --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 19:43, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose Great composition, but the noise is just too much. Steven Walling 22:11, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
- Support --Steindy (talk) 23:10, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
- Support - ditto to kaʁstn - MPF (talk) 11:01, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
- Support per kaʁstn, and due to one dog's compelling blue eyes. --Avenue (talk) 14:11, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose Good action shot, but there is too much noise, almost everywhere. --Cayambe (talk) 16:24, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
- Support Having in mind the conditions.., very nice work.Iadrian yu (talk) 19:31, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
- Support Noise? Oh, I didn't notice cause pic looks so cool. --Lošmi (talk) 01:43, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
- Could you please all review according (among other things) to the technical guidelines? The image is beautiful but the noise is visible even on the 800px-wide thumbnail. This image wouldn't even get a QI status. --Eusebius (talk) 07:23, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
- Can you clarify what you mean? Dogs by their inherent nature are noisy, though you can't actually hear it on a photo. There is also of course a lot of white spots from snow kicked up, is that what you're referring to? That apart, the lead dogs are clear and in decent focus. I can't see what your problem is. MPF (talk) 07:55, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
- No, I'm talking about the prominent electronic noise coming from the camera sensor, amplified by the 1000 ISO. --Eusebius (talk) 09:55, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
- This is an action shot, you can't compare it with a bowl of oranges for which you can choose conditions. Of course that one should try to avoid noise as much as possible but in some cases it's inevitable. Nevertheless the same guidelines says: "Given sufficient “wow factor” and mitigating circumstances, a featured picture is permitted to fall short on technical quality". --Lošmi (talk) 12:05, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
- No, I'm talking about the prominent electronic noise coming from the camera sensor, amplified by the 1000 ISO. --Eusebius (talk) 09:55, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
- Can you clarify what you mean? Dogs by their inherent nature are noisy, though you can't actually hear it on a photo. There is also of course a lot of white spots from snow kicked up, is that what you're referring to? That apart, the lead dogs are clear and in decent focus. I can't see what your problem is. MPF (talk) 07:55, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
- Could you please all review according (among other things) to the technical guidelines? The image is beautiful but the noise is visible even on the 800px-wide thumbnail. This image wouldn't even get a QI status. --Eusebius (talk) 07:23, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
- I know. I know the mitigating circumstances, but the picture is still VERY noisy. Far too much for a Featured Picture. On the parts best in focus (which aren't so sharp btw), noise is prominent enough to hide the details of the picture, and it is not limited to the darker parts of the photograph. The picture is not exceptional enough for me to ignore that, and I have the very strong opinion that this picture should not be promoted. To quote the FP guidelines: "pictures being nominated should be of high technical quality", "[Noise] is not a desirable quality and can be grounds for opposition". --Eusebius (talk) 12:23, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
- Still can't see what you mean. What does this "electronic noise" look like? I can't see anything "hiding the details of the picture" - MPF (talk) 13:07, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
- I know. I know the mitigating circumstances, but the picture is still VERY noisy. Far too much for a Featured Picture. On the parts best in focus (which aren't so sharp btw), noise is prominent enough to hide the details of the picture, and it is not limited to the darker parts of the photograph. The picture is not exceptional enough for me to ignore that, and I have the very strong opinion that this picture should not be promoted. To quote the FP guidelines: "pictures being nominated should be of high technical quality", "[Noise] is not a desirable quality and can be grounds for opposition". --Eusebius (talk) 12:23, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
(indent reset) Open the picture at 100% and look at the top left corner (for instance). Over the background, you can see snow flakes (larger white spots), and a multitude of pixel-size coloured spots, making an orthogonal lattice (image of the photosite lattice on the sensor). Here it is really very bad, showing local patterns (coloured vertical or horizontal lines). On a better image, it could look more like the grain of a photographic film. If you look at the head of the first dog, you can see that the edge of the eyes, of the nostrils, of the teeth, the texture of the tongue... are somehow hidden by this noise. --Eusebius (talk) 13:24, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
- Can see what you mean now, but don't think it is enough to have a serious adverse effect on the photo. Maybe some people are more sensitive to it than others? - MPF (talk) 16:30, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Poor image quality, too tight framing. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:42, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose I love huskies but per Alves • Richard • [®] • 20:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
