Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Plage de l'Horloge.jpg

File:Plage de l'Horloge.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Nov 2019 at 19:23:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Plage de l'Horloge.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Plage de l'Horloge.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Bridges#Canada
•  Info All by -- Wilfredor (talk) 19:23, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
•  Support - Could be sharper, but a very large file, still good at 300% of the 13-inch laptop's screen, with a nice composition and mood. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:28, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose Nothing is sharp (again, why f/18?), too much noise, distracting foreground object (stairs?), and I can’t see any clear composition nor subject here. What’s the monument – the beach, the bridge, the buildings? --Kreuzschnabel 09:29, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
•  Support Like Ikan, I think sharpness is OK given the file size, and I actually like composition and mood. --Aristeas (talk) 10:53, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
  •  Comment Are we talking about the same image? ;) 23.8 megapixels is really not that outstanding – here is a large size image where sharpness down to pixel level is not required. Even downscaled to 50 percent (i.e. 6 megapixels), this here candidate is still not sharp. f/18 on a DX size sensor is an odd decision if you want a sharp image, due to aperture diffraction growing along the pixel density. --Kreuzschnabel 22:09, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

 Comment I completely agree with you that f/18 is not a good choice, especially on an APS-C camera (I would have used f/8 to f/11 on a “full-frame” camera). --Aristeas (talk) 08:16, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

•  Support per Ikan. Cmao20 (talk) 11:02, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose Pretty noisy for ISO 100 and I also wonder why f/18. I do expect more sharpness for FP Poco a poco (talk) 20:33, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Kreuz and Poco a poco, please, take a look, I applied a selective denoise and selective sharpening. f/18 because I was looking to keep the beach and the bridge in the same plane. Thanks in advance for your reviews --Wilfredor (talk) 00:30, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Sharpness is a bit better now but you cannot regain details lost in exposure by subsequent sharpening. The water surface has not been done a favour by sharpening, and I’m still not sold on the composition. If the bridge is the main subject (as I understand), it’s way too distant and too little visible of it. --Kreuzschnabel 06:49, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

The Bridge is only a element in the composition, the title is Beach Horloge (in french). --Wilfredor (talk) 07:09, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

•  Oppose Composition mildly interesting but lighting isn't great, plus concrete steps at bottom are distracting. Eve Teschlemacher (talk) 00:44, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose - Artifacts on water. Sorry for not seeing those at first, but they've really bothered me since I saw them. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:48, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Version without the concrete steps at bottom

•  Info Because Eve Teschlemacher recomendation --Wilfredor (talk) 07:18, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
•  Comment Less is more :) this is much clearer. However  Oppose there are sharpening artifacts now all over the frame (foreground sand as well as the background bridge) and the cloning is poorly done (i.e. with visible traces), no this is not at all an FP to me for technical drawbacks. --Kreuzschnabel 10:01, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
•  Comment - Great improvement, much more relaxing to look at, but I'm sorry, I have to pull my vote from the other version and hold off here until it's clarified whether I'm looking at just wind or disturbing noise in the water. I'm talking about the small lines. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:09, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
  •  Comment How could this be wind? It’s on the umbrellas and in the sand as well. It’s sharpening artifacts – this image is hopelessly oversharpened in trying to save some detail from the unsharp shot at stopped-down aperture. --Kreuzschnabel 10:05, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

I come from fix the excesive oversharpening and artifacts in the water, please, take a look --Wilfredor (talk) 00:21, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

 Comment @Wilfredor: Just as a hint: As far as I can see, the fix was applied to the first (uncropped) version, but not to this cropped one; it should be fixed, too. --Aristeas (talk) 08:55, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

•  Oppose - Sorry, the water still looks unacceptable to me. -- 08:48, 22 November 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ikan Kekek (talk • contribs) --Aristeas (talk) 08:56, 22 November 2019 (UTC) (UTC)
•  I withdraw my nomination Thanks guys for the feedback, however, IMHO this image are not working maybe i used too much DoF --Wilfredor (talk) 05:31, 23 November 2019 (UTC)