Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:1 aerial yangshuo panorama 2017.jpg

File:1 aerial yangshuo panorama 2017.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 May 2017 at 16:28:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:1 aerial yangshuo panorama 2017.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:1 aerial yangshuo panorama 2017.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
•  Info created & uploaded by Chensiyuan - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 16:28, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- Tomer T (talk) 16:28, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
•  Support JukoFF (talk) 20:49, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose A lovely scene, yes, but too noisy in the background (As I've said before, when drones can start carrying DSLRs or something equivalent, then we will see some really great pictures from them here). Daniel Case (talk) 21:39, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
•  Support - Doesn't seem all that noisy to me, and I find it impressive and well-composed. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:13, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

@Ikan Kekek: It's most noticeable in the background ... sort of looks like it was shot through applesauce or something like that. Daniel Case (talk) 05:02, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I guess I see what you're talking about, but since it's the background, it doesn't bother me that much. Maybe I'm wrong; we'll see how other people vote. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:07, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

•  Oppose Indeed a beautiful composition, but for me too noisy for a FP --Michielverbeek (talk) 05:46, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
•  Comment I'm not saying that this image necessarily is a FP, but I find it stunning that people would seriously oppose a 30+ MP aerial photo because of noise issues. Imo this really reflects an excessive focus on technicals and judging images at 1:1 regardless of pixel count, when most users of this picture would only ever notice this turning this picture into a large poster. --DXR (talk) 07:38, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
•  Support per other supporters --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:16, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
•  Support I agree with DXR, this is not more noisy than some of the the night FPs we have here. The curve of the river offsets the strange pointy mountains in a nice way. It can seems strange that we accept noise in night photos because of technical limitations, but not in aerial photos due to other technical limitations. Btw (sidebar), the development of drone photography seems not to lie in making bigger drones to carry larger cameras, but rather going the other way. New drones are smaller but with better software. They can be programmed to fly in grid patterns, taking lots of images that are stitched together into panoramas. There is also the technique where a host of small drones fly in formation and are synced to perform tasks such as compiling photos into a large image, (or just looking pretty). --cart-Talk 09:21, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
  • @W.carter: World’s first 100-million-pixel drone launched by DJI and Hasselblad scnr ;-) --El Grafo (talk) 15:44, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

• @El Grafo: WoW! Awesome! It might be just a liiiiittle bit outside my price range. :-P Think I'll stick with the smaller ones with the upgraded software for now. :) --cart-Talk 16:07, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

•  Oppose The compo is good but the quality is not. Too noisy and not sharp enough for FP.--Ermell (talk) 10:25, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Agreed that drone photography leaves something to be desired, but it is well-composed, as pointed out by Ikan, and is a very interesting scene. WClarke 22:57, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
• Regretful  Oppose per others --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:09, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
•  Support 100% agree with DXR. Yann (talk) 17:03, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Amazing drone shot ! Makes me want one of those. - Benh (talk) 21:10, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Very beautiful, sharpness and noise are OK for the resolution. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:46, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
• Strong  Support We need more FPs similar to this one! --★ Poké⁹⁵ 06:11, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose OK, so I've thought about this for a while now. The technical quality is fine for me, good enough for a pretty large print. I like the composition, totally agree with Cart here. But somehow I'm still not really wow-ed by the over-all picture. It looks kind of bland to me, and I've got a suspicion that the same composition could work much better had it been taken at a different time of day, a different day, or a different season. It is good, it is useful, but it doesn't blow my socks off. Sorry, --El Grafo (talk) 08:27, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 19:08, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Jee 02:59, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

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