Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:PeruRail EMD GT42AC 812 at Km 99.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:PeruRail EMD GT42AC 812 at Km 99.jpg, featured[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Oct 2017 at 01:48:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info (From David's description): PeruRail's EMD GT42AC 812 and 808 haul a container train from Matarani towards the Las Bambas mine. The train is pictured just before arriving at Km 99, where a temporary facility is used to transfer the containers from rail to trucks for the remainer of the distance.- Info created and uploaded by Kabelleger - nominated by me -- Thennicke (talk) 01:48, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
Support -- Thennicke (talk) 01:48, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
Oppose The sky's too blue 晴空·和岩 讨论页·反互煮 02:18, 1 October 2017 (UTC)- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:18, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:49, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
too high contrast set, maybe more. All in all it doesn't look natural to me. --Hockei (talk) 06:43, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
Comment If the weak dust spot on the left side is removed I would support the picture.--Ermell (talk) 06:59, 1 October 2017 (UTC)- Support Agree with Ermell, hope dust spot will be removed... --Mile (talk) 07:32, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
- Comment I'm not happy with the post-processing on this one either. I'll try to improve that later today. That being said, the picture was taken at around
35004000 m asl, the sky is much darker at these heights. -- Kabelleger (sorry can't log in at the moment)- Comment I've uploaded a new version with slightly less contrast and saturation, and without the dust spot in the sky. --Kabelleger (talk) 18:38, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
- I think you worked with curve and haven't controlled very good your result. Now at the ground before the railway (see note) details are lost. The contrast I find better, also it looks more natural now. The posterization is still there. BTW, I wonder, this picture has 25.8 MP and only 6.9 MB. Is it downsampled? --Hockei (talk) 05:57, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
- The previous settings used to put more contrast into the bright areas, but - as a result - also made them darker, which, I think, contributed to the slightly unnatural look. I think the details in the area you marked are totally fine, though. (And yes, I changed highlight recovery, contrast and curves). About posterization, I can't see any of that in the area you marked. Posterization typically happens in smooth gradients after strong denoising. Finally, about the file size, I use a fairly high Photoshop JPG quality setting and I think it's good enough to not leave any visible artifacts in this case. The photo is not downsampled in any way. --Kabelleger (talk) 16:47, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
- By the way, I still think the photo has a certain surreal look to it, but I'm pretty sure that's not due to bad editing. --Kabelleger (talk) 16:49, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
- I change to
Neutral. --Hockei (talk) 07:06, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- I change to
- By the way, I still think the photo has a certain surreal look to it, but I'm pretty sure that's not due to bad editing. --Kabelleger (talk) 16:49, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
- The previous settings used to put more contrast into the bright areas, but - as a result - also made them darker, which, I think, contributed to the slightly unnatural look. I think the details in the area you marked are totally fine, though. (And yes, I changed highlight recovery, contrast and curves). About posterization, I can't see any of that in the area you marked. Posterization typically happens in smooth gradients after strong denoising. Finally, about the file size, I use a fairly high Photoshop JPG quality setting and I think it's good enough to not leave any visible artifacts in this case. The photo is not downsampled in any way. --Kabelleger (talk) 16:47, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
- I think you worked with curve and haven't controlled very good your result. Now at the ground before the railway (see note) details are lost. The contrast I find better, also it looks more natural now. The posterization is still there. BTW, I wonder, this picture has 25.8 MP and only 6.9 MB. Is it downsampled? --Hockei (talk) 05:57, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
- Support already very good as it is! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:36, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Ivar (talk) 11:19, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
- Support per Martin --A.Savin 14:40, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
- Support very good.--Ermell (talk) 19:15, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
- Support --The Photographer 00:22, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
- Support Daniel Case (talk) 14:18, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:07, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
- Support --cart-Talk 08:16, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 06:22, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Yann (talk) 09:53, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Ermell (talk) 20:01, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Pofka (talk) 19:56, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
- Support Albertus teolog (talk) 11:51, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Laitche (talk) 15:58, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
- Support --XRay talk 18:19, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places
