Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Wat srichum 03.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:Wat srichum 03.jpg, featured[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Mar 2017 at 21:30:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
Info created & uploaded by Khunkay - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 21:30, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 21:30, 22 February 2017 (UTC)- Support -- KennyOMG (talk) 23:50, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Comment Interesting view, - but I think that color fringes had to be fixed --PtrQs (talk) 01:17, 23 February 2017 (UTC)Regretful
Oppose due to insufficient image quality --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:38, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
- Support The new version is fine. --Uoaei1 (talk) 17:03, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Neutral per fixable CA issues noted above. Daniel Case (talk) 19:08, 23 February 2017 (UTC) Support now. Daniel Case (talk) 05:54, 26 February 2017 (UTC)- Comment @Tomer T: I really like this photo with its unusual perspective and seeing that Khunkay isn't very active at the moment, I have fixed a version with most of the CA removed and a very, very slight noise reduction. Do you want me to upload it on this file? You can always rollback the edit if you don't like it. --cart-Talk 20:08, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
- Of course. Tomer T (talk) 20:15, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
- I like that picture, so let's have a look. --PtrQs (talk) 20:24, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
- Ok, let's see if this is enough or if I botched the job. Remember to purge your cache. --cart-Talk 20:49, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
- Comment In the fileliste I see 4 pictures, wherein #2 and #3 have a more copper-like gold and a violet sky. By the color of the sky I would guess, that the brownish gold is more realistic. Is it possible to combine the original gold-color with the good No-CA work? --PtrQs (talk) 21:31, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
- Versions 3 & 4 are exactly (or should be) like ver 2, but with just two minor corrections on the CA of the statue. It is a curse that you always find something you've missed as soon as you upload a file. :-/ The first part of the CA removal was made in Lightroom with additional manual removal in Photoshop. It is possible that LR did something with the hue when it removed the CA. I'll see if I can put back the right hue. Files also "change" when you upload them since the different programs and browsers fiddle with the color. --cart-Talk 21:50, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Fixed I've nudged the spectrum two steps back towards the original brow-gold as requested. I think this is as far as I want to mess with this. Someone else can take over or revert if necessary. --cart-Talk 22:04, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
- Support by now - and a special praise for cart --PtrQs (talk) 01:18, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Question BTW: is it possible to describe what we see in real english? --PtrQs (talk) 21:31, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
-
- Also pinging @Uoaei1: and @Daniel Case: to let them know that the pic is cleaned up now. --cart-Talk 10:21, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
- Support Interesting, good quality. --Yann (talk) 21:32, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
- Support ...forgot to support it too! ;) --cart-Talk 21:38, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
- Support Wow, great shot! --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 22:21, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
- Support Albertus teolog (talk) 23:24, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
- Support - I thought the curvature might be a distortion, but other photos of this Buddha show the same curvature. I would have loved a tad more sky, but I won't decline to support based on something that trivial. Impressive photo of a very impressive statue. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:32, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
- Support lNeverCry 03:26, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:01, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
- Support WOW -- Wolf im Wald 18:20, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
