Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Hallgrímskirkja.jpeg

Image:Hallgrímskirkja.jpeg featured

[[:Image:Hallgrímskirkja.jpeg|300px|thumb|The tower of Hallgrímskirkja in Reykjavík, Iceland; drastically enhanced by User:MarkSweep]]

The tower of Hallgrímskirkja in Reykjavík, Iceland. Author: Tillea. Nominated by villy 07:31, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC).

• Support. villy 07:31, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC) (nominator).
• Oppose --Shizhao 18:22, 9 12? 2004 (UTC)
• Support --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 23:55, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose bad image quality--Darkone (¿!) 19:58, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose --Thomas G. Graf 19:59, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Please note that I recently uploaded an enhanced version of the image that gathered the votes above. The original image was uploaded from somebody whom I offered a scanned image which was not identical in colors with the original slide (a fact that the uploader did not know). The current version is now better. I would love if the "Oppose" statements would have some reason to enable me to enhance my image quality. Tillea 06:57, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Support for the new version. (I didn't care for the old all blue one. I suspect some of the objections related to that older version. Perhaps you should have this as a new listing?) -- Infrogmation 22:36, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support new version as of Dec. 20. villy 13:14, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Comment: First, the image that was originally nominated needed some perspective correction (look at the houses on the lower left and the lamp posts on the lower right side). Second, the sharpening was too much (look at the full image to see artifacts introduced by sharpening). Third, I didn't see much evidence for the magenta color of the light/clouds in the original slide (De:Bild:Hallgrimskrikja-winter.jpg or [1]). I've added an alternative version that tries to address these concerns. Some sharpness is lost in the full image, mostly due to the perspective correction, but when the image is scaled to 300px this is not an issue. --MarkSweep 09:43, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Remark from the photographer: The links you quotet where not really the *original* slide but an atomatically done scan by a not really professional lab which produced the photo cd. The slide which resides in my cupboard here has some kind of red-magenta shine. It is somewhere in between all these versions. Thanks for the perspective correction. Tillea 08:11, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ok, so it's the photo lab that messed up your slide. Not good, but not uncommon either. I think this could be made into an image worthy of "featured" status. Is there any chance that you could scan the original slide yourself? It's being opposed here mostly because of technical flaws in the post-processing. It would be a shame if the photo wouldn't get featured because of that. --MarkSweep 09:24, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• oppose, sorry but still bad quality. Darkone (¿!) 13:29, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support Bad quality? Then I definately need new glasses. --Biekko 03:24, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support--Factumquintus 11:27, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support-- Henryart 22:21, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support (Alternate take only) --Thomas G. Graf 19:40, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Support - Anything which makes me go "Wow" is worth featuring. -- Ranveig 19:16, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Per TilleA's request, the alternate take was merged with the mainline. The two images listed here should now be identical (module cache issues or the second one having been deleted). --MarkSweep 14:57, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)