Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:SwansCygnus olor edit2.jpg

Info Original image created by Bowen Pan. This edit by Cavit Erginsoy. Uploaded and nominated by Ben Aveling 22:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Info The original image has been nominated for featured picture at WP 4 times, and failed each time because of the unfortunate glare. This edit has the glare reduced, and without too much loss of detail, arguably the opposite. As well as producing a beautiful image, it could also be used as an example of what can be done with post processing.
~~Support~~ Ben Aveling 22:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Unfortunately the image is too small according to the guidelines. Alvesgaspar 22:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WOW! --Makro Freak 23:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Wow! but unfortunately too small and not enough mitigating reasons for that small of size. --Digon3 00:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Great shot, but poor quality. -- Ram-Man 01:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support-- Mbz1 04:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
Oppose too small and over processed. -- Lycaon 05:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj 20:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I like the original better. Color gradients seem to have been reduced to a fewer number of discrete steps, almost like it had it's number of colors reduced. Also the magenta/purple colors in the gradients do not look good to me. /Daniel78 21:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It actually has more colour span. --Javit 09:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question You mean the new one has more colour span than the old one? Ben Aveling 11:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Lestat 17:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support There is a highres version. Yah, the image is a bit over processed but this does not matter. The Mona Lisa has some cracks but it is anyhow she's perfect. The symbol is perfectly visualized. A bit hokey ^^ Metoc
- Question Did you mean to support this one, or the higher res one below? Regards, Ben Aveling 07:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment can everyone please vote in the section below as well or instead. I suspect that anyone who supports this version, would support the below version, but I'd rather that be made explicit, especially as I hope that not all of the people who opposed this version would oppose the higher-res version below. Regards, Ben Aveling 07:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 16:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support I've sent Javit back to the lab, and he's been sweating blood and tears to produce this version for us. 1600 × 1201 pixel, file size: 1.12 MB. Regards, Ben Aveling 11:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Better make it a new nomination and put it on top, or not many people are going to see it. --Digon3 13:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose low quality blow up -- Lycaon 16:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's not a blow up at all, I used all the resolution available from the raw file, nothing extra. --Javit 23:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually sorry I remembered I did blow up 15-20% using Genuine Fractals, which is well within %100 lossless blowup capability.

Comment It will be difficult to reach FP with a blow up, however minor, which is done just to achieve size requirements. Down-sampling makes it a very pretty picture, but not for FP, sorry. Lycaon 05:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Don't you lose some information by resaving it as a jpeg ? I don't say it's visible, I am just curious if it's theorethically possible to guarantee 100% lossless with a jpeg resave ? /Daniel78 12:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support > Rugby471 ^talk 18:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice picture, might even be the kind of picture you could market commercially. But it's not FP quality. -- Ram-Man 02:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Navigation menu