Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Seascape after sunset denoised.jpg

Image:Seascape_after_sunset.jpg

Original (left), not featured

•  Info created by - uploaded by (moved to commons by Freedom to share) - nominated by Freedom to share --Freedom to share 22:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
•  Support I feel that this image is a great landscape photograph, with a great mood, tone and composition. --Freedom to share 22:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose Not convinced by the choices : long exposure smoothes the sea surface making it not real, moment shooting seems too late  : rocks are completely black --B.navez 03:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
•  Support --Charlessauer 08:33, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose Technically insufficient. Very noisy. Lycaon 10:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
•  Support I am a big fan of such long exposure photos...and I really like this one. The problem with the noise is difficult to avoid with such photos. --AngMoKio 12:33, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose Very nice and good mood but the framing is too tight for my taste : the two subjects, the rocks, are at the edges. Also, the noise in the whole LR quarter should be post-processed and I would have liked an indication of the location where this picture was taken. Sting 13:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Very beutiful --Laziale93 17:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose For sure a very lovely, and visually appealing seascape with a great mood, but I fail to see its real value for existing or future Wikimedia projects. What is the informational and educational content? Not even the location is specified in the image page. I recommend geocoding it. -- Slaunger 21:01, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose may support after noise reduction. --Beyond silence 13:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
•  Neutral - I too, like images with long exposure times - I will only change to support if the noise is reduced and the location specified --Booksworm 16:02, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
•  Support, the noise is hardly visible. --Aqwis 20:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  • It is very prominent in the darker parts. Lycaon 20:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Well, it doesn't bother me at least. Perhaps I have a too dark monitor, but we have several FPs with more noise than this in any case. --Aqwis 20:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
•  Support So moody picture, and "out of this world" like. I like the exposure and the composition. Very inspiring to me (hope I'll come up with something similar one day). A bit noisy, but it doesn't kill it for me. Wouldn't opening a bit more had been a better choise (could have allowed to set ISO down) ? -- Benh 19:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Very impressive. Good.--Karelj 21:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose Value, noise, dark rock. -- Ram-Man 22:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Sorry I have to ask again. What is it about the value? --AngMoKio 09:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
    • It is quite obvious in this case and well stated by Slaunger. It is possible for every picture to have some value, but this to me is clearly lacking in the basics. -- Ram-Man 22:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
•  Comment Is it possible to add a bit more information to the picture. For example where has that photo been taken?--AngMoKio 09:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

result: 7 support, 6 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Mywood 08:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Edit (right), featured

•  Info I added an edit with noise reduction (right version). /Daniel78 23:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
•  Support The right version. /Daniel78 08:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
•  Support the noise-reduced version (right) - much better --WikiWookie 03:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Quality is now good, and it has value for me, even if not Encyclopedic value... --WikiWookie 13:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
•  Support --AngMoKio 09:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Even better than the previous one. Freedom to share 21:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose For the same reasons as above: Missing location, questionable value for Wikimedia projects. -- Slaunger 06:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)Location is now there, and I am convinced it has value. -- Slaunger 20:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
•  Support - Without a doubt. We need more artistic interpretations of nature, like this one. -- Alvesgaspar 09:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
•  Comment I just don't get it. How can we seriously promote a photo of a landscape not knowing anything about the location - artistic or not? I am seriously worried about the gradual FP drift away from from usefullness/value towards artistic beauty which I have seen happening the last couple of months. -- Slaunger 09:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  • why should this photo not be useful or shouldn't have value? What is wrong about an artistic landscape shot? I agree, to know where this place is would be better...but still the photo is valuable for me. How do you know what wikimedia projects there will be in the future? And this is a technically good shot with imho a very nice composition. --AngMoKio 10:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
    • The photo has a strong visual wow for me as well, I do not argue with that. I think it is very beautiful and no, I cannot know what future wikimedia projects this might be usefull in. I am not arguing that the image is useless, I am just contemplating that for an image to become the top-of-the cream 1/2000 images on Commons which are featured we can expect that certain minimum requirements about the informative value of the associated image page has to be fulfilled. The links on the image page does not tell anything. It is OK that a landscape shot is artistic, but there is more to FP IMO. --

Slaunger 10:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• Slaunger, I fully agree with you. This image as a landscape has little value. I did not intend it to show value as a landscape and I knew that the nomination is going to be hit by value problems. Just defending my decision, look at the categorisation of that image. The main category is "Blue hour". I looked up the article of that name in the Wikipedia once and saw that the image greatly added to it and was a great graphic representation of what the article meant. It also demonstrates landscape photography in dimmer conditions imo and also long exposure photography, but mostly the concept of blue hour. Hence, I feel that it has great value as it clearly enlightened me and presented an aspect of photography I did not know about. If you disagree with that, voice your opinion with an oppose please. Thanks for the comments you put in, --Freedom to share 19:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

  Freedom to share, these are valid points, and I see it can have value for Wikimedia projects. Hoowever, my biggest reservation with the image is really that there is no information available about the photo. No location. I think this is a prerequisite for going FP. (I have already stated my vote above previously, if location info is added I will change my vote to support). -- Slaunger 21:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to contact the original author on en:wp and ask him about the details. Freedom to share 08:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Great, thank you. -- Slaunger 11:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

•  Oppose value, as above. -- Ram-Man 12:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
•  Comment I'd hate to oppose based on lack of background, and hate to support based on that same reason. Any chance in contacting the original poster and getting some detail on this image? Jaakobou 19:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  •  Support background added, -- Jaakobou 17:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
•  Support So beautiful ! -- Benh 21:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose You've managed to keep some of the noise while removing some of the details. Lycaon 19:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
• Update Added location data after contacting original author. Freedom to share 07:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

  Good, and now the location just has to be put in a location template. See COM:GEO. -- Slaunger 20:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

•  Oppose it was taken a bit too late, there is very low light and much detail is lost. i tend to agree with those that argue about noise and quality of this image-LadyofHats 17:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
•  Support--Simonizer 20:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
•  Support --Wisnia6522 16:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

result: 9 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Mywood 10:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)