Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:A Swift's Call To Prayer.jpg

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

File:A Swift's Call To Prayer.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 19 Mar 2009 at 22:55:25
Sabah State Mosque Minaret

  •  Info created by Dcubillas - uploaded by Dcubillas - nominated by Dcubillas -- Dcubillas (talk) 22:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- Dcubillas (talk) 22:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Question Could you add species information to the image description? bamse (talk) 11:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Question Where is EXIF-data? Could you reduce noise? —kallerna™ 14:18, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Ive just added species information to the image description as best I could. also... Where is the noise?? To say that this image is "noisy" would be "spliting hairs"... over doing it. Mind you that the walls of minaret have a "rough" finish, and the golden part is made of tiles... both things may be mistaken as noise at first glance. The sky has VERY fine grain... barely noticeable at 100%. reducing this "noise" would also reduce fine detail elsewhere in the image... a bad compromise IMO for removing barely noticeable "noise". And the EXIF-data? well... gone. Lost somewhere along my post processing workflow. I switch between 2 programs and 2 image formats... I convert my original JPGs to TIFF, work on them till Im happy, then convert back to JPG. Working with TIFF allows me to go back and work on the image as many times as I want without worrying about losing image quality every time its saved. The EXIF-data gets striped somewhere along the line... When I found out, I was quite pleased as I was trying to find A way to remove the EXIF-data from most of my photos (for all uses other than commons, as I didnt mind leaving the exif on photos used here)... a welcomed accident. Of course, now all of my photo lack EXIF-data. Never bothered looking for a solution to something that I didnt see as a problem. Besides I dont think its a requirement for FP. -- Dcubillas (talk) 19:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • So you switch from a lossy format (where information has been lost because it was saved in this lossy format) to a lossless format (where nothing is lost, except of course that what was lost before is still lost) and then back to a lossy format again (losing even more)? Plrk (talk) 20:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • ---If you are not shooting RAW and you want to process your images, you dont have a choice to "losing even more"--- As far as Im concerned (for my purposes), no information is lost in the original JPG files (the ones created by the camera) since no saves have been performed (although "technically"... the camera has 'saved' the file as JPG). In a way, I treat my "original JPG files" as if they where RAW files. There is clearly no comparison, but (for several reasons) I unfortunately cant shoot other than JPGs for the time being and have to settle for this (the original JPG has to be my starting point for now). In the end the outcome is exactly the same with or without the TIFF step in between, but TIFF gives you flexibility (the whole point your missing). I just want a file with the exact image quality as the JPG produced by my camera, but without its limitations. So unless you shoot RAW or dont touch the JPGs produced by your camera... You will loose some more quality... You will need at least a second JPG save. Not that these files arent any good... they are more that good enough for the majority uses... besides, you'd be hard pressed to see any difference between a JPG saved once and the same one saved twice.. IMO the visible losses come with further saves (something TIFF and other lossless formats help avoid). -- Dcubillas (talk) 01:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Could you please geotag it? --Dori - Talk 03:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done
  •  Support --Dori - Talk 12:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Lookatthis (talk) 20:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Phil13 (talk) 00:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- Ignoring the technical talk above, I support simply because I enjoy the image. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 09:11, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose due to composition and perspective issues. Tiago Fioreze (talk) 10:13, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose - Nice picture but not special enough for reaching FP status. I don't care for the perspective either. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support I think this image is technically excellent (no issues with DOF or CA) and very well framed and timed. Noise is minimal. Honestly, I love this shot! --Specious (talk) 03:03, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 6 support, 2 oppose => featured. Pbroks13 (talk) 20:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:A_Swift%27s_Call_To_Prayer.jpg&oldid=19514676"