Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ice cave on Olkhon island.jpg

File:Ice cave on Olkhon island.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 May 2017 at 15:11:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Ice cave on Olkhon island.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ice cave on Olkhon island.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
•  Info Ice cave on Olkhon island, lake Baikal, Russia. Created, uploaded and nominated by Sergey Pesterev -- Sergey Pesterev (talk) 15:11, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- Sergey Pesterev (talk) 15:11, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
•  Neutral Nice but 1) quite noisy and 2) could you pull highlights back a bit more? Red/green are clipping in the sky (to the left of the figure). -- KennyOMG (talk) 16:11, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
•  Comment I agree with KennyOMG and I'm also oldfashioned enough to want icicles to be vertical. Any chance of fixing all this? --cart-Talk 16:21, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

"IIII-ci-cle! IIII-ci-cle! / I want to like the icicles; I want them to look right" Daniel Case (talk) 05:05, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

•  Comment KennyOMG, W.carter, according to the EXIF, the highlights have been recovered as much as is possible. Although red/green values read 0xFF in the JPG, imo it isn't really that important unless there (a) it is reasonable to expect an 8-bit JPG to record that tonal range from ice cave to direct sunlight and (b) there's any interesting detail that has been lost. I think all we have here is some white featureless clouds in that portion, with the sun lighting them behind, and I'd rather they render brightly on my monitor than artificially reduced to paper white in order to have a more acceptable HEX value :-). The EXIF also show the exposure has been lifted considerably, showing that the photographer "exposed for the highlights" as much as they could. The darker cave has possibly been selectively brightened, further raising noise levels. I agree that some noise reduction on the cave (but not the central portion) would improve things. A vertical perspective adjustment of -40 together with a scale of 90 will fix the sloping verticals and retain as much image as possible, though there is some loss of the upper corners as a result. -- Colin (talk) 20:12, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

• I only mentioned it because the yellow-orange blob draws my attention somewhat disturbingly. -- KennyOMG (talk) 18:40, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

•  Support - I'd love a decrease in noise, but this is spectacular, so to my mind, it's already an FP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:21, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
•  Support per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 03:10, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:25, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --PierreSelim (talk) 06:15, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
•  Support per Ikan --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:39, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Yann (talk) 07:08, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Oh what the heck... I'm in. :) It is spectacular. --cart-Talk 08:14, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
•  Support. Great, though few spots would benefit from some localized noise reduction. — Julian H.^✈ 11:41, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Cayambe (talk) 16:59, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Golden Bosnian Lily (r) 21:34, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
•  Neutral for now because of the issues mentioned above - it should not be difficult to correct these. --Uoaei1 (talk) 07:36, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:17, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- Pofka (talk) 12:15, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 2 neutral → featured. /Jee 03:39, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural