Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Scenery of Shinji pond at Expo’70 Commemorative Park, November 2015, Osaka II.jpg

File:Scenery of Shinji pond at Expo’70 Commemorative Park, November 2015, Osaka II.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Dec 2016 at 15:43:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Scenery of Shinji pond at Expo’70 Commemorative Park, November 2015, Osaka II.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Scenery of Shinji pond at Expo’70 Commemorative Park, November 2015, Osaka II.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places#Japan
•  Info C･U･N by -- Laitche (talk) 15:43, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
•  Support -- Laitche (talk) 15:43, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
•  Support wow, just wow --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 16:26, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
• 482 MB - maybe that was my total upload in 2016. I often put compression from 12 to 11, since you wont loose anything, and this would jump back on 50-60 MB. I dont like crop, edges are problamatic since tree is cut. Some more air is missing also, its claustrophobic. --Mile (talk) 17:40, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

• Mile: Thanks for the comment. I think they can delete the old versions, or not? we don't need old versions... And would think about 11 compression next time. --Laitche (talk) 02:57, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

• @Laitche: When an admin deletes any file or old version of a file, all it does is hide them. They still take up the same space on the servers. But no worries, they've got terabytes and terabytes... lNeverCry 07:02, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks INC :) --Laitche (talk) 07:11, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

•  Comment One note added and maybe the last version is a bit too bright (noise is more visible in the shadows). --Ivar (talk) 19:06, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

• Ivar :  Done reduced the brightness, I think the noise is better in shadows and fixed unnatural noise as well. --Laitche (talk) 02:57, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

•  Support -- Ivar (talk) 06:26, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

•  Support - Impressive! How many exposures did you stitch together? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:08, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

• Ikan Kekek: It's from 13 single portrait format photos. --Laitche (talk) 02:57, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

•  Oppose Beautiful colours let down by composition/crop. The shadowed trees on the right break the photo. The trees on the left are cropped above and below which spoils the symmetry/reflection. The picture is higher pixel size than it deserves since it is quite soft at 100%. While I don't oppose because of that, I fail to see the point in making huge stitched photos that are larger apparent resolution than the lens/sensor achieved. Experiment with a modest reduction e.g. 75%. The image is quite noisy, particularly on the water and shadows, which helps make the filesize too large. If Mile is correct that this was saved at quality 12 (max) then that's just silly. This 240 megapixel image is the same size as your 93 megapixel one. Compare also this 150 megapixel image that is much smaller filesize. Both are also much sharper than this. Use quality level 11 on Photoshop (or 90% on Lightroom) and you will see a big reduction in filesize and no visible change. Reduce the noise on the water/sky and you may also see a filesize reduction. If you are shooting at 50mm, then I suggest buying a prime lens, as even a cheap one will be much much sharper. -- Colin (talk) 22:26, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

• Colin: Thanks for the comment. --Laitche (talk) 02:57, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

• That's a good reduction, thanks. I still think the composition/crop is unfortunate. It's a beautiful view, but IMO, a FP has to be photographically good, not just a great subject. -- Colin (talk) 08:00, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

•  Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:39, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
• Mile , Colin :  Done saved by level 11 compression. --Laitche (talk) 03:32, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
•  Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 06:51, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
•  Support lNeverCry 06:58, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
•  Support In my opinion "wow" there is. Jacopo Werther ^iγ∂ψ=mψ 07:17, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
•  Info First thing what could be done is more on Adminship. To erase all previous versions of pictures, i think we would get more free space than we think. I dont know why do they keep'em. --Mile (talk) 08:52, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Yes the cropped trees are a minus, but having them all in would have resulted in too much sky and water and they do frame the pic very nicely. --cart-Talk 10:07, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
•  Comment The image is too large and too soft, therefore I recommend to downsample it by a reasonable factor. The noise visible in dark areas also has to be handled. --Uoaei1 (talk) 11:07, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

• Uoaei1: I thought the same and actually I have uploaded the downsampled version first but the original is large and they can see more details besides they can see the downsampled version any time, therefore I re-uploaded the original size :) --Laitche (talk) 11:30, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

•  Regretful oppose per Colin; too soft. Daniel Case (talk) 19:13, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
•  Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 11:24, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per the comments about composition and crop, sorry -- Thennicke (talk) 11:32, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
•  Support --Code (talk) 15:30, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Still impressive, despite the regretful flaws said above by Colin. --★ Poké⁹⁵ 01:15, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Mile (talk) 21:10, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places#Japan