Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Aerial view to Motovun.jpg

File:Aerial view to Motovun.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jan 2022 at 15:00:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Aerial view to Motovun.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Aerial view to Motovun.jpg

• Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Settlements#Croatia
•  Info This great capture I found by coincidence during the gallery categorization of quality images. Thanks to user XRay for the successful nomination :) This aerial photo shows the Croatian village of Motovun. Regardless of some slight image noise, I find it FP-worthy. It has won the first place at WLM Croatia. Created and uploaded by Ekaterina Polischuk (talk) – nominated by -- Radomianin (talk) 15:00, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
•  Support -- Radomianin (talk) 15:00, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
•  Oppose Great view indeed and nice light but poor quality, it's just too grainy --Poco a poco (talk) 16:40, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Poco a poco. --Fischer.H (talk) 18:30, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
•  Support Another photo that was on my list of possible FPs. It's a bit noisy as others have said but IMO fine for a 20mpx photo and the composition is wonderful. Cmao20 (talk) 18:35, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
•  Info new version with partial denoising uploaded. --Ivar (talk) 19:22, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

• Thank you very much for your improvement, Ivar. I was thinking about doing a denoising by myself and uploading it as a derivative file. Since already awarded photos are subject to special editing protection, I always have some doubts. For this reason, I added a retouch template on the file page to be on the safe side. @Poco a poco: @Fischer.H: @Cmao20: The user Ivar has kindly done a partial denoising. Many regards :) -- Radomianin (talk) 21:21, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
•  Info to the author: Dear user @Ekaterina Polischuk: as part of the nomination for the Featured pictures program, your original photo has been slightly denoised by an experienced user. This editing was just a proposal which you can reverse at any time. If necessary, please feel free to denoise your original version by yourself and upload it. Thank you very much and many regards :) -- Radomianin (talk) 21:21, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

• An improvement, thank you, I'm moving to  Weak support --Poco a poco (talk) 22:26, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

•  Support very good light conditions and outstanding composition. --Ivar (talk) 19:24, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
•  Support Per Ivar and Cmao20. (Side note: The best one of the aerial photographs by that user.) --Aristeas (talk) 20:43, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
•  Support Per all supporters. I can forgive the noise on a drone shot, and it's not really distracting here. But maybe Ekaterina Polischuk sees us and can redo the sharpening and NR ? (My guess it's that it comes mostly from the Sharpen Edge Masking which is set to 0) - Benh (talk) 20:47, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --Ermell (talk) 21:11, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
• Weak  Oppose: Beautiful photo, but I feel like it's a bit too grainy to be one of the greatest photos on Commons. Might the photo be edited to be more nearly pinpoint clear? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:21, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

• Thanks for your review and editing suggestion, Ikan. With selective blurring and subsequent sharpening options, I did not get the desired results. Unfortunately, this worsens the image. Perhaps Ivar has another idea? Many regards :) -- Radomianin (talk) 23:55, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

• All my best to you as well! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:34, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
• Thank you very much, wishing you a happy and first a healthy New Year :) -- Radomianin (talk) 11:15, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

• I feel like 'pinpoint clarity' and 'reduction of grain' are a little self contradictory. The more noise reduction you do, the less sharp the image will be - a sad but unavoidable fact about image processing. I think the image is better than it was, though. But I understand why some might still consider it to fall short. Cmao20 (talk) 01:59, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

• It's already been sharpened without edge masking (see EXIF), so it's going to be difficult to get rid of the noise without blurring the details away. It's better to contact author so she can rework on the NR and sharpening from the RAW. - Benh (talk) 09:42, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

•  Further note: Regarding the edit/discussion, I left a message on the author's talk page. -- Radomianin (talk) 11:15, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

•  Support Beautiful scenery, very well composed. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 03:43, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --Llez (talk) 07:29, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
•  Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 10:27, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --Fischer.H (talk) 11:07, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --A.Savin 16:45, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
•  Support Very appealing light. The clouds are nice too. Great view -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:21, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
•  Oppose Overprocessed --Uoaei1 (talk) 21:55, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:36, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
•  Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:18, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:51, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
•  Regretful weak oppose; great shot but overprocessed. Daniel Case (talk) 18:16, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 21:52, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Settlements#Croatia