Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Moros, Zaragoza, España, 2013-01-07, DD 11-13 HDR.JPG

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

File:Moros, Zaragoza, España, 2013-01-07, DD 11-13 HDR.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Mar 2014 at 19:21:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

View of the small village of Moros, province of Zaragoza, Aragón, Spain. The whole village of Moros lies on a hill, with the most relevant buildings in the top (church and former town hall), the residences in the middle and the sheep pens at the bottom. The current population of Moros is 441 people (35% of the population one century ago, that's why many houses are abandoned).
  •  Info View of the small village of Moros, province of Zaragoza, Aragón, Spain. The whole village of Moros lies on a hill, with the most relevant buildings in the top (church and former town hall), the residences in the middle and the sheep pens at the bottom. The current population of Moros is 441 people (35% of the population one century ago, that's why many houses are abandoned). The picture is the result of the blend of 3 pictures. It was necessary because the sun (shone on the left) made the clouds very bright, causing an overexposed sky within one frame. All by me, Poco2 19:21, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- Poco2 19:21, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- Saffron Blaze (talk) 23:03, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Michael Barera (talk) 01:27, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Gidip (talk) 06:55, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support I like the overall composition very much, however it appears that there are some patches of softness on some of the buildings. Nothing major, perhaps related to the HDR. --DXR (talk) 07:34, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi DXR, thanks for your feedback. Feel free to add notes, I'll see what I can do Poco2 10:01, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think it is a matter of location in the image, but e.g. some of the buildings near the church are a bit soft (like the ruin below) [but well possible that I'm maybe a bit too strict here]. I would just sharpen it a notch overall to give it more crispness, but just my opinion, not a big deal at all at this res. --DXR (talk) 10:47, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I increased the sharpness overall and selective in some areas, looks fine to me, thanks, 11:50, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
    Much better! --DXR (talk) 12:15, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:30, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak  Oppose Sorry but Imo despite sharpening, the left part are is still not quite sharp and has a low level of detail. Composition and lighting is good, but not outstanding (nothing that sets it apart from a good QI). No wow either.--ArildV (talk) 12:04, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    ArildV, can you please add a note where you miss detail? I cannot see the loss of quality that make you oppose. The weather and lighting were IMHO optimal. The sun was shining to the facades of the interesting side of the village and the shadows, far from disturbing, add perspective and texture to the image. The clouds, that could be shown properly with help of HDR, are a plus to me, as well. Regarding wow, of course, that's a matter of taste. Maybe you think that this kind of scenes are usual in Spain. I am Spaniard and have travelled a lot and I hadn't seen a case of a whole village being fully built up on such a steep hill. Before tooking the picture I walked around the houses and it was pretty crazy. When I took this picture there was big wow for me and I thought that would be even more for others not familiar with old spanish villages. Poco2 14:05, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Poco_a_poco; after discussing the picture earlier today, I took another look. I'm still not convinced, to me it is almost like you've applied a lot of sharpening on a slightly blurred image. I am aware that I may be wrong, and removed my oppose (and DXR has a point).
    I dont doubt your description of the village, abandoned (or partially abandoned places) are often interesting and often have an very interesting story to tell. But an exciting and unique places does not automatically mean that the picture is exciting and unique. For me, this is a very straightforward QI with a good composition, good lighting conditions and good EV. I look forward to see more pictures taken inside the village. I understand the feeling of walking around in the unique village, but I don't feel that feeling when I look at this picture. I dont think I can explain it better.--ArildV (talk) 17:14, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support The dark sky with sunlight on the subject is a good catch, and capturing the whole old village on the hillside makes an interesting composition for me. Whenever I find an image disappointing at 100% for softness or noise, I always pop it into something like IrfanView and reduce it first 75%-original-size then perhaps 50%-original-size with a little sharpening. Here, the 75% size version is still over 11MP and very sharp all over. So I ask myself if an 11MP image offered at FP would have enough wow here. And it does for me here. I'd rather Poco donated his larger image than felt it necessary to heavily downsample to avoid pixel-peeping. -- Colin (talk) 17:26, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pixel-peeping is a derogatory term, and I dont think it's fair here. The most reviewers (including me) take into account the images size (In other words, you are not alone), it is one of the considerations when reviewing images (downsampling is not a solution, since we take eventual downsampling into account ​​when reviewing the image). By the way, I upload and nominate full-size images.--ArildV (talk) 18:25, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • ArildV, I think you assume too much of your fellow contributors and you also assume everyone here is as experienced as you with FP expectations and norms. Also, remember my comments aren't just/necessarily pointed at yours. You may well have done as I suggested and still found the image wanting (I can't personally spot any sharpness issues at 75% but perhaps you think then the detail or resolution at 11MP is unexceptional and requires more). But you didn't say you had. So for all the newbies and kids who vote here, are they to read this and assume that pixel peeping is fair game? Because if one reads photography websites it sure is and nothing is desirable less than the latest 36MP A7R with Zeiss glass. Back in the real world, we have lenses mortals can afford, cameras that can only dream of 19MP, heat haze, noise, hand shake, wind... The vast majority of images online are "resized for web" and probably look awful at 100% and Commons is quite unusual in publishing large images for close examination. So you may not need reminding of the dangers of pixel peeping, but in my experience many do. As a newbie reviewer, nothing is easier than opening the image at 100% and finding technical flaws. Oh look, I found some CA in the edges. Far harder and bolder to criticise the composition or lighting, say. Contributors have given up because of pixel peeping complaints at FP and many contributors do downsize heavily to avoid them. I know of no other term than "pixel peeping" to describe an issue apparent only at 100% but that is not felt important for judging. BTW, I don't understand why you struck your oppose. I think your rationale is a valid one and should conclude in you opposing. Be bold! -- Colin (talk) 19:26, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --JLPC (talk) 18:12, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment The first thing I said when I saw this image was "wow, I would love to see this place in person". In Canada we have NOTHING like this, and given that context, what might be quite ordinary to some is extraordinary to me. However, I don't think this position is so outside the norm that I felt at all constrained in supporting this image. Saffron Blaze (talk) 19:07, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --P e z i (talk) 23:46, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment It's always possible I'm being too picky, here, but I'm completely on the fence with this one. The foreground/background contrast is nice, but nothing within the subject itself jumps—it's flat, for lack of a better word. This has a ton of potential; if you were to make this same picture perhaps earlier/later in the day when the buildings' shadows add some dimension, I'd support it in a heartbeat. —ATinySliver/ATalkPage 03:58, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Halavar (talk) 14:38, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Great lighting. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:53, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Yes, what a shot! The lighting is awesome and the composition is also really, really nice. The overall quality could be a tad better, but anyway this one rocks! --mathias K 15:45, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --A.Savin 06:00, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral Sharpness not very convincing. Picture doesn't really "wow" me off overall. --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 15:54, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not the best sharpness for this camera and lens, yes, but anyway  Support. --Alex Florstein (talk) 16:01, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Jee 03:48, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Moros,_Zaragoza,_España,_2013-01-07,_DD_11-13_HDR.JPG&oldid=120127893"