Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Skogskyrkogarden-night-2007-11-03.JPG

Image:Skogskyrkogarden-night-2007-11-03.JPG, featured

original

•  Info created by BloodIce - uploaded by BloodIce - nominated by Spiritia. I loved the way it combines encyclopedic illustrative capability, creative composition, emotional touch and high photographic quality :-) --Spiritia 21:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
•  Support --Spiritia 21:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
•  Support haunting. Durova 21:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
•  Support I disagree Durova. It seems calming to me, to me it reassures us of our Christian beliefs of heaven and seems an appropriate way to respect those who passed away from this earth. Freedom to share 21:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose To me it is just a noisy picture with ghosts (left) and a cross (right). Why are images not properly de-noised before submission? Lycaon 22:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Great atmosphere. --Karelj 23:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
•  Question What's the origin of the ghost crosses on the left? --MichaelMaggs 07:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Looks like people - Keta 09:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • These are people indeed or maybe just a single man. 10 sek of exposition in a busy night - a lot of people are celebrating All Saints Day. BloodIce 13:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose Sharpness, noise. --Beyond silence 08:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose Nice composition, but limited value for me and very distracting ghosts. -- Slaunger 21:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Why limited value? The photo depicts a certain cemetery near Stockholm, and does so in the finest possible way. Of course that it can illustrate more general articles on cemeteries or death-related customs in Sweden, but I don't really expect that it can be applied to everything in between nuclear physics and babysitting :-) Cheers! --Spiritia 23:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

    I certainly do not expect an image to cover everything in between nucleal physics and babysitting :-). I just expect an FPC to have high value for Wikimedia projects. I acknowledge the artistic values of the photo and its mood, but I fail to see a good context for it to be used in. Like, if we follow your suggestion that it is "the finest possible" illustration of the World Heritage site Skogskyrkogården, I personally think that the illustrations used already in that article are better at illustrating the place, simply because they are not taken during the night, where it is hard to discern details and get the full context. I think it requires a quite good knowledge of the area to actually recognise the place from the photo. The photo may have good value for illustrating more abstract concepts such as certain emotions and religious topics. For me it is just not clear what that might be. On the technical side I forgot to mention the distracting chroma noise in the sky. -- Slaunger 07:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

•  Support -- herbstmeier1806 22:32, 02 February 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Very nice image. --Michael { ^ta_lk _} 11:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

result: 6 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => (Waiting for result of the edited version) Simonizer 14:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
no votes for the edited version. --Spiritia 16:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

de-noised, not featured

•  Info uploaded by Lycaon 23:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
•  Comment - I may be dense, I'm not good at this, but those two images look the same to me. Patstuart (talk) 08:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• No, you are not ;-) It is not easy to see at first glance, but the quality of the second image has substantially improved IMO. Have a look, e.g., at the sky above the small bush left of the cross at 100%. The noise in de sky is virtually gone, while details that were there have been preserved. Lycaon 09:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, do you think that this image will ever be used above resolutions of 1000px? I should've uploaded a smaller version. The reason that is not de-noised is that I believe in purity of the moment - with as less as possible software tricks. BloodIce 09:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The option of using it at resolution above 1000px has to be there per Wikicommons Scope. And do you really believe that your camera is not doing any software tricks with your image? That noise is per definition a software/hardware trick. Lycaon 10:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

You are absolutely right - the hardware is generating the noise (despite of the advanced algorithms to mask it), exactly as the film resolution is a limitation in classics. However with particular hardware you can make just a certain image similar to a single shot from film camera. And in my opinion it must stay as it was shot, with as less as possible interventions (to be honest I increased the brightness and contrast of that image with one or two steps). I am not trying to defend the noise - it is obviously there, I am just expressing an opinion. BloodIce 13:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

result: 0 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured --Spiritia 16:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)