Oppose - very nice capture of the horse's motion. Comment I think the white dots are bits of dust/grass kicked up by the horse, not photo flaws, so are natural and belong. - MPF 13:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC) . . . changed my vote, hadn't noticed the bad editing of the grass (top right) pointed out by AngMoKio - MPF21:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think the picture is noisy, cf. for instance the upper part of the fence in high resolution;
as for the dots: I've now seen two truly tiny dots that *I*'d guess are flaws (one in front of the fence between the horse's legs, and one in front of the horse's right hind leg)--unfortunately, I don't have time and/or knowledge to remove them myself; let me know if there's any forum of the commons where I can find help for issues like this
out of focus: At least *I* can't see that--looks like only the background and the horse's legs aren't perfectly in focus, the latter gives just a hint that the horse is moving (which for me makes the picture interesting; but that's my POV of course); well, and then there's the dust of course, which also belongs. --Ibn Battuta15:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nice composition...nice capture. Unfortunatelly there is really a focus problem and it is overexposed. Furthermore there is sth else wrong with the picture...check the upper right corner, there went sth wrong with the photoshopping --AngMoKio19:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose viewed at 100% the upper part of this image is riddled with odd lines, repeated patterns in the grass, noise, and a sharp halo around the horse, was the clone tool was even used? The selection tool and a simple copy and paste perhaps?--Benjamint44400:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose strongly. I really can see the odd rectangular bands even at low resolution! This is not just contrasts on their borders, but really a bad adaptation of the camara filter when it creates the JPEG. The camera certainly has a bug in its compression algorithm, or it is your software which uses very cheap conversion/compression algorithms with poor quality! For such noisy image, you really need an excellent edit software with state of the art programming of filters. Most of the defacts don't seen to come from the lense or sensor, but really from bad numeric handling after the shot! Verdy p01:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you have used PhotoShop 7.0 to edit the original. I suggest you restart the edit from the original, using a better quality software, and that you use the filters consistantly instead of using it by bands. This may require more memory in your system to compute the filters without using sub-bands. If you don't know how to do it yourself, reload your original here under the same name, and ask to someone if he can perform the corrections for you.
Note: white dots between the legs near the fence are not bugs. This is really true sand spread by the walk of the horse (evident at high resolution). But the very visible bands in the grass in the background are really a severe defect(or incorrect use of your edit software). Verdy p01:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Info created by Ivan Machado - uploaded by Pbicalho - nominated by me. --Ibn Battuta 05:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Support --Ibn Battuta 05:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Oppose Lighting is far from good, poor quality in full resolution (highlights, white dots, unsharpness) - Alvesgaspar 11:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment I think the white dots are bits of dust/grass kicked up by the horse, not photo flaws, so are natural and belong. - MPF 13:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC) . . . changed my vote, hadn't noticed the bad editing of the grass (top right) pointed out by AngMoKio - MPF 21:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
