Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Guaratiba morning.jpg

File:Guaratiba morning.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Sep 2015 at 19:24:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Guaratiba morning.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Guaratiba morning.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
•  Info created and uploaded by Jonathan Wilkins (edited by Poco a poco) - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 19:24, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
•  Support -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 19:24, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
•  Support I could imagine a bit less processing, but given what Paco had to work with I think he did the best he could. Daniel Case (talk) 01:47, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
•  Support per Case. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:15, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
•  Neutral Wonderful composition. Sorry, but IMO it needs more sharpness. --XRay ^talk 09:14, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per XRay. I find some palmtrees too dark (no details)...--Jebulon (talk) 11:22, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
•  Support Good for me. Yann (talk) 21:32, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose Nice composition and the light but not enough sharp and too much green CAs. --Laitche (talk) 09:03, 31 August 2015 (UTC) --Laitche (talk) 23:46, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
•  Support per Daniel and Yann. --Tremonist (talk) 14:08, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
•  Support --Тајга (talk) 23:07, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
•  Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 07:17, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
•  Support--Ταπυροι (گپ) 12:14, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
•  Support I like the composition. I see the noise issues when I look at the photo at pixel level, but downsampled this is beautiful. Overall, I think the pros outweigh the cons. --Pine^✉ 20:17, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

@Pine: I agree with you about the composition but that green sky and the reflections in the green water are caused by green CA, So that green colors are fake color, See note. imo :) --Laitche (talk) 22:52, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

When downsampled, that fake colors would never disappear. --Laitche (talk) 23:18, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Laitche: I see what you've tagged as fake green, but it's not clear to me that those greens are faked. Can you clarify? --Pine^✉ 05:33, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

@Pine: No I can't clarify it though I've ever seen the green sea but I've never seen the blue and green two-tone-colored sky even on the videos :) --Laitche (talk) 06:04, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

• Laitche: I think I'm still missing what you're perceiving to be anomalies in the image. To my eye, even if there is some artificial coloring in the photo, it's a beautiful photo overall. --Pine^✉ 06:24, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

• @Pine: I don't know, maybe you are right although I can see the big green halos as well... --Laitche (talk) 06:32, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
• Laitche: I agree that there are some problems when looking at pixel level. To me these are forgivable due to the other good qualities of this image. --Pine^✉ 06:44, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
• OK, but I can see the CAs even in the thumbnail... --Laitche (talk) 07:05, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

• @Laitche:  Done. Poco a poco uploaded a new version. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 18:55, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

• Hahaha OK, I withdraw my oppose but I'm still suspecting the colors, the differences are too much from the original. The main reason to oppose was not flaws, that was digital retouched edited colors. Poco's edit is good but too far I think, maybe too good :) --Laitche (talk) 23:46, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

• @Laitche: The colors changed due to WB correction. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:59, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

• WB correction is also the retouching editing... --Laitche (talk) 00:03, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 22:03, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural