Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Rainforest tour

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

[edit] Rainforest Walk

Rainforest walk at the National Botanical Gardens, Canberra
Enlarge
Rainforest walk at the National Botanical Gardens, Canberra

I quite like this panorama, but I've noticed a lot of people feel my photos too saturated. I'd be happy to tone it down if people want.

  • Support. Self Nom. --Fir0002 06:36, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Its not too saturated for my tastes, a good image. Thryduulf 18:56, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, now I'm allowed to. Thryduulf 10:21, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. I really like the fact that the path is off-centre, giving you what I assume is around a 120 degree perspective towards the left. Personally I think it would be prettier on an overcast day as sunlight is a killer in rainforest scenes, blowing out just about everything it touches. :) But this one is definitely worthy of FP. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 19:09, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Neutral. I still like the panorama for what it is, but despite what gmaxwell says, I think the image does need a little work. While viewing at 100% is unrealistic, I think it shows that some heavy processing has occured and that it could be improved. And not that I'm suggesting Fir002 go back to Canberra (on what I assume was a school trip, as he is not from there) to re-shoot this panorama, but as I said above, it would be better balanced and prettier on an overcast day. There are just as meny negatives as there are positives to this photo IMHO. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 17:09, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Very nice! --Janke | Talk 19:35, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Support -- TomStar81 00:41, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Hey, I was at this park a few years ago! This is exactly how I remember it. Raven4x4x 00:43, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - I DO think it is a bit too saturated but I'll support anyway.--Deglr6328 06:59, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - Very cool. -- user:zanimum
  • Neutral - nice pic, but a bit dark on the left. Flcelloguy (A note?) 19:59, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I think it is saturated to the point that detail is lost. The parts in the sun are completed washed out. Enochlau 01:03, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - Stunning! - JustinWick 00:49, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. How did I know Fir's pic would be featured? Can we just feature any pic this guys brings. Truly great. If you haven't thanked Fir for improving Wikipedia, you should. --LV (Dark Mark) 21:55, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
    • After further consideration, oppose. Enochlau is right. It looks awful in high res. I still stand by my statement to go thank Fir for his work. Next time I'll vote correctly the first time. --LV (Dark Mark) 21:58, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Support -- Chris 73 | Talk 00:44, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose It is shockingly poor in high res. Hamedog 02:33, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose I was trying to tell if the image looked funny at high res just because of the color of the ferns, or if it was image quality. I decided it was image quality. ~MDD4696 (talk • contribs) 03:14, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: In certain browsers that re-scale the full-sized image to fit the window, the result is terrible. Look at it in some photo editing software instead. Remember, this image is over 4000 pixels wide! --Janke | Talk 14:15, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Support: The image quality of very high resolution images should not be judged looking at the image at 100% because no user of this image would use it at that scale (at the resolution of my screen the image would be over 3ft wide, so what we're saying is that we are opposing a >3ft wide image because a little noise is visable). The noisyness of the shadow areas goes away if the image is viewed at half the resolution.. so what we're saying is that we'd support the image if the uploader had anticipated our foolishness and throw out half the images resolution before uploading it. I'm sorry, but thats broken. --Gmaxwell 07:12, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
    • There is more wrong with the image quality than noisy shadow detail though. I admit that I only looked a lot closer to the image once others noticed, but there is very obvious banding in the shadows and what looks like stitch marks in certain areas. Most stitch marks in panoramas are usually blended in better though - these are almost like sharp lines. I agree with you that viewing at 100% isn't realistic, but I still believe its rather poor quality regardless - viewing at 100% with a Canon 20D shouldn't result in detail as poor as this one has. It just appears to be very heavily processed and resampled poorly (presumably with the panorama software, I guess, since photoshop shouldn't butcher an image like that unless it was resampled with something other than bicubic). Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 17:09, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
  • There is so much support for this picture that it will undoubtedly be featured. However, it might be a good idea to reduce the size to 50% or so, in order to get rid of most of the objections. Would Fir himself care to do it? That would be best... --Janke | Talk 16:47, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Rainforest walk national botanical gardens.jpg Raven4x4x 06:43, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../f/e/a/Wikipedia%7EFeatured_picture_candidates_Rainforest_tour_34fd.html"