Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Lobo marino (Zalophus californianus wollebaeki), Punta Pitt, isla de San Cristóbal, islas Galápagos, Ecuador, 2015-07-24, DD 11.JPG

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

File:Lobo marino (Zalophus californianus wollebaeki), Punta Pitt, isla de San Cristóbal, islas Galápagos, Ecuador, 2015-07-24, DD 11.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Dec 2015 at 07:48:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Galapagos see lion (Zalophus californianus wollebaeki) in Punta Pitt, San Cristóbal Island, Galápagos Islands.
If it was atmospheric conditions alone I think the nearer cliff, the beach and the water just offshore would be sharper than they are. Daniel Case (talk) 03:01, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Question - I'm not nearly the serious photographer most of you are, and this is the first day I've voted for or against promoting any files to Featured status, so I'll give my observations and then ask a question. First, I love the composition of this photograph. However, at full resolution, what I'm seeing is that the sea lion is completely clear, but both the near sand and the closer cliffs look so fuzzy, they're almost pixellated. Colin, are you saying that's a normal product of photographing at such a large file size? On the face of it, I would vote to oppose featuring this picture on the basis that it's so blurry at full resolution, but I'm holding back because I may lack sufficient knowledge to judge this picture adequately. Is clarity at full resolution not one of the criteria for promoting a photo to Featured status? Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:28, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ikan/Daniel there's a kind of speckled hazy effect in the distance. I'm really not sure what it is. It doesn't look much like the noise on my camera. And ISO 250 on a modern FF camera shouldn't be noisy at all. Maybe Poco has applied some sharpening globally that has brought out/added to the noise, and the use of a sharpening mask might avoid this. My objection really is that even if this is noise, it is only visible when viewed from 30cm at 100% and at 100% on a standard 100dpi monitor, the image is over 2.2 metres wide. It could be printed at 240dpi a metre wide and you wouldn't see any noise at all. So I really object to complaints about noise at this sort of level in a huge 50MP image. All that does is encourage people to upload downsized images to avoid "pixel peeping" comments. The complaint about the background being hazy (whether focus or heat-haze or both) and whether that is good or bad is your subjective judgement. But I'd suggest you judge that aspect on the image as a whole, and not when viewing a 2.2m-wide image from 30cm. If you look at this link to a 3000x2000 6MP version then perhaps that is a more reasonable size to judge. 6MP is enough to print at 240dpi A4 size. -- Colin (talk) 11:25, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. It's a lot clearer at that size, though the sand still looks just a bit hazy to me; however, that could be because I already viewed the full-sized image. This photo has a great composition and I won't stand in the way of it. Overall, it is quite good at that size. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:13, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 2 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 16:52, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Mammals
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Lobo_marino_(Zalophus_californianus_wollebaeki),_Punta_Pitt,_isla_de_San_Cristóbal,_islas_Galápagos,_Ecuador,_2015-07-24,_DD_11.JPG&oldid=181937808"