Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Limmat in Zurich

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

Image:Limmat in Zurich, not featured[edit]

The Limmat River in Zürich, viewed from the Uraniabrücke

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by Booksworm --Booksworm 19:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Booksworm 19:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose No wow, compression artifacts and noisy. /Daniel78 19:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question/Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - Flowers don't have "wow" and yet there are countless featured flowers here. My Question is - How can I improve this picture? Booksworm 19:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Thank-You Lycaon (But I have used the Photography Critiques before, you see). I was just asking Daniel78 if he could elaborate a bit more as opposed to a 6-word sentence. Booksworm 20:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Well there is quite a bit of noise (grain) in the darker parts of the picture, and the artefacts (compression? camera related?) are most visible on the wall of the left low whitish house. Lycaon 20:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question - What do you mean by Compression? Booksworm 21:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Saving in jpg is a lossy method which uses compression to end up with a smaller file size. Repeatedly saving an image in jpg introduces compression artefacts: you loose (lossy compression) part of the original information that was stored in your photograph, every time you hit that save button. I'm not claiming that this is the case here, but it is a common way of introducing artefacts. Lycaon 21:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
  • "No wow", might be unclear wording but what I mean is that even if this image was technically good I do not think the view/composition is special/valuable enough for a FP (that little extra that is not so easy to put in words). About the compression artifacts I mainly noticed it in the bottom part of the image in the water where much detail is lost, but sharpness suffers in the rest of the image too. Many programs have a setting for the jpeg quality when saving an image. By the way I disagree about flowers having "no wow", some have, some do not, just as some rivers have and some do not :) /Daniel78 23:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
  • If you don't think flowers have "wow" you aren't really seeing them. Calibas 01:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • To add to the JPEG and lossy compression issue, when editing I save often to avoid losing my work (have not crashed in years, but it has become a habit...). If you do this, make sure you use a non-lossy format while editing (ex. .psd, .tif) and not to a .jpg. Each time you save it, the compression artifacts will get worse regardless of the quality settings. - Relic38 01:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I live in a country where I see 10'000 flowers every day, so frankly, I don't see any "wow" in flowers Booksworm 20:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
That's so sad... Lycaon 21:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
You say that but your image gallery tells a different story. =) Calibas 20:18, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg CommentWhat I meant by the above comment is that several users had suggested there was a "wow" in flowers. I don't see a wow in flowers - I see beauty Booksworm 14:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I like this composition, but the quality isn't that good (jpeg artifacts, unsharp, too dark). the preceding unsigned comment was added by Rocket000 (talk • contribs)
result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of the 5th day) Cecil 20:47, 11 November 2007 (UTC)