Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Street art at Mayapur.JPG
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:Street art at Mayapur.JPG[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Dec 2012 at 14:56:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info all by Dey.sandip -- Dey.sandip (talk) 14:56, 25 November 2012 (UTC)- Info This is an example of street art. I am not sure whether we have an FP on street art, or whether this kind of photograph is even admissible as FP. Please feel free to support or oppose with your views. --Dey.sandip (talk) 14:56, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Support -- Dey.sandip (talk) 14:56, 25 November 2012 (UTC)- Support a good picture of a human activity... --Tomascastelazo (talk) 15:27, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
- Support Tomer T (talk) 16:09, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Neutral Interesting; but too tight at bottom and right. JKadavoor Jee 17:00, 25 November 2012 (UTC)- Neutral Legs in the background a bit distracting. Very tight crop on bottom right corner. -- JDP90 (talk) 17:58, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
- I think those faceless observers make the picture more real. Its a street art, so there should be some observers :) But I appreciate all different views --Dey.sandip (talk) 18:26, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Oppose --Low image quality due to over-processing. Bad application of noise reduction which made that lots of textures were lost and turned them artificial. See for examples the ground, the light blue dress of the top-right girl, the top-left bags, etc. The composition isn't that much appealing too for a FPC: the face and hands of the girl in pink are hidden, same for the hands of the light blue one. It might have been more interesting in this scene to focus on one sole character. Sting (talk) 19:14, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
- The character is the art-work, not the girls :) --Dey.sandip (talk) 19:19, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
- Well, if it was the case the image should picture the artwork at least almost finished and not at its early stage with the painters hiding half of what was already made ;) But that's only my PoV and comment, not the reason why I opposed but yes the image quality. Sting (talk) 22:49, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks. I understand your concern about the NR issue. However, this photo was taken using a point-and-shoot camera which didn't have a RAW mode. The original (out-of-camera) JPG file was uploaded as the first version (21st November version). This had some color noise and CA issue, which we tried to remove in the later versions. If you have time, and want to improve on the original file by better post-processing, please feel free to upload a new version. --Dey.sandip (talk) 09:12, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- You pointed it out: here it's FPC and the promotions are not only based on the subject/composition but also on image quality at full size. At least they should. Unfortunately in many cases point and shoot cameras aren't well suited for this page because of their technical limitations. Sting (talk) 10:42, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- I'm a agreeable man, you see
. Do we have a FP guideline for the full size image quality requirement? --Dey.sandip (talk) 00:51, 27 November 2012 (UTC) - "Thou shalt not pixel-peep". :-) Colin (talk) 12:53, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- Thou shalt never, unless its a FP guideline? --Dey.sandip (talk) 01:03, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
- I'm a agreeable man, you see
- You pointed it out: here it's FPC and the promotions are not only based on the subject/composition but also on image quality at full size. At least they should. Unfortunately in many cases point and shoot cameras aren't well suited for this page because of their technical limitations. Sting (talk) 10:42, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks. I understand your concern about the NR issue. However, this photo was taken using a point-and-shoot camera which didn't have a RAW mode. The original (out-of-camera) JPG file was uploaded as the first version (21st November version). This had some color noise and CA issue, which we tried to remove in the later versions. If you have time, and want to improve on the original file by better post-processing, please feel free to upload a new version. --Dey.sandip (talk) 09:12, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- Well, if it was the case the image should picture the artwork at least almost finished and not at its early stage with the painters hiding half of what was already made ;) But that's only my PoV and comment, not the reason why I opposed but yes the image quality. Sting (talk) 22:49, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
- The character is the art-work, not the girls :) --Dey.sandip (talk) 19:19, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose No wow for me. Low quality. Not enough space in bottom and I would prefer if the faces of viewers would be visible. Kruusamägi (talk) 10:05, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- No wow, agreed. Low quality for FP, agreed. Not enough space in bottom, will take that as well. Please explain how the faces of the observers will add to the compositional value of the image. --Dey.sandip (talk) 00:56, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose Low quality of image is apparent even on image preview page. The framing isn't bad but I fail to see what is FP about the scene. -- Colin (talk) 12:53, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- Even with the lowest image preview size ? Then it must be too bad ! --Dey.sandip (talk) 00:51, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination Due to low image quality -- Dey.sandip (talk) 18:41, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
