Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Elephant feces in the wildlife.jpg

File:Elephant feces in the wildlife.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Feb 2012 at 09:03:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Elephant feces in the wildlife.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Elephant feces in the wildlife.jpg

899

2346

612

449

5616

3744

Unnatural color (perhaps too saturated) and chromatic noise

Please read: Color temperature!

•  Info created, uploaded, nominated by -- Alchemist-hp (talk) 09:03, 5 February 2012 (UTC).
•  Info Now you can official write and say: this image is simply shit --Alchemist-hp (talk) 09:03, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Support -- Alchemist-hp (talk) 09:03, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Support Cathy Richards (talk) 15:55, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Comment Remembers me this one, never assessed in the QIC page...:/...;)--Jebulon (talk) 16:01, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Support --Katarighe (Talk) 16:04, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose See the shade: Unnatural color (perhaps too saturated) and chromatic noise. In adition, chromatic noise in all the object IMO--Miguel Bugallo 17:35, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

  Hi Lmbuga, please read the article: Color temperature and then you understand the "blue shadow" areas. I can mail you my RAW file too. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 17:51, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I only can read the spanish version (too little version) and I think the same, sorry--Miguel Bugallo 00:46, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I have never seen something like this in a picture mine not oversaturated. In the shade there are green colors, violet colors, blue colors...!: Excessive to me--Miguel Bugallo 00:49, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

•  Support The shade is not a valid reason to oppose. I see nothing wrong with this picture.Trongphu (talk) 22:23, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

the shade (or shadow) is a demonstration that the image is oversaturated IMO--Miguel Bugallo 00:57, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

•  Support --Brackenheim (talk) 10:51, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Support Let us not argue about this shit. Shit Happens ;-) --Ritchyblack (talk) 18:31, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose Not wow for me--Umnik (talk) 19:18, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose As Umnik, nothing so special for FP. --Karelj (talk) 22:13, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose I'm afraid Miguel is right. The shadow does look really weird. But also the top left corner, and the dung looks too reddish and oversaturated. There's also some chroma noise. --Paolo Costa (talk) 02:16, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose The original shot wasn't "tick sharp" and the well executed sharpening process can't change that fact. Moreover the chromatic noise in the dark areas as mentioned by others reduce the images' quality. Please consider using {{Retouched picture}} to point out the changes done to the image. Great idea for a featured picture btw. Regards, PETER WEIS TALK 21:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

  It isn't retouched. It is simple an other second image, taken some seconds later.

•  I withdraw my nomination I withdraw this image for now. I try to rework it new, perhaps without chromatic noise. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)