Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Portland Night panorama edit.jpg

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

Portland Night panorama[edit]

The skyline of Downtown Portland, Oregon Edit #1Spots from the glare removed

  •  Info created by Fcb981 - uploaded by Fcb981
  •  Support (Self nom) --Fcb981 17:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Hmm let me think ab.. Support !! very nice pano, nicely stitched, nice colours ... maybe two tiny things however : a bit of noise in dark areas, and lots of flare, but these are really nothing... -- Benh 18:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • True thing, next time I go shoot night panos I'll take off my UV filter. that should help with the flare. Unfortunately my D40 only goes down to ISO 200 so there'll always be a little more noise than I would like. -Fcb981 18:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional  Oppose The vignetting in the sky is too obvious and the glare should be cloned away. You should ask Klaus with K about how to remove the vignetting. Support once these issues are fixed. --Digon3 talk 18:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose if you want but the vignetting doesn't bother me in the thumb size, is difficult for me to decern in the 800px size and I don't notice it in the full size. also, sorry, but it would be extremely difficult and time consuming to clone out the ghost on every street lamp, not to mention I think the results would be bad. I will talk to Klaus with K though -Fcb981 19:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll will be happy to clone those out once the vignetting is little better. --Digon3 talk 21:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose vignetting. --Seeder 20:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Question Vignetting ? are you talking about the gradient that can be seen on the sky ? Because I believe this is natural. If the sun goes to bed on the right side of the picture, isn't it normal that this part of the sky is brighter ? - Benh 20:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, the gradient is natural and I have no problem with that. I am talking about how there are uneven bands in the gradient as a result of stitching, and those can be fixed. To see it best, zoom into the sky and scroll back and forth. --Digon3 talk 21:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Dori | Talk 22:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Guidelines for nominators atate: "Value - our main goal is to feature most valuable pictures from all others. Pictures should be in some way special, so please be aware that: nightshots are pretty but normally more details can be shown on pictures taken at daytime". In my opinion the picture is pretty, but has no value.Sorry.--Mbz1 01:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
  • Mbz1 has stated here: "...i will vote to oppose no value pictures and i will vote to support value pictures no matter what quality they are." This is contrary to voting procedure. -Fcb981 14:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC) [reply]
Value for me in the Commons FP means that this is the best picture of its subject (which for a few minor details it is IMO). Wikipedia FPC is all about value in the article, which is the way you are talking about, just not the Commons FPC. --Digon3 talk 13:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 18:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit #1, featured[edit]

result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 18:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/Image:Portland_Night_panorama_edit.jpg&oldid=11638027"