Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Ciudad de las ciencias noche.JPG

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Ciudad de las ciencias noche

Ciudad de las ciencias noche
Ciudad de las ciencias noche
Edit 1 - Fixed the grain and blur and keeping the quality. by Arad
Edit 1 - Fixed the grain and blur and keeping the quality. by Arad
Edit 2 by Fir0002, sharpening/noise reduction
Edit 2 by Fir0002, sharpening/noise reduction

A high quality photo which also represents the modern architecture. A good choice for FP and Pic of the day. Author: Chosovi. It appears in Ciutat de les Arts i les Ciències article.

  • Nominate and support edit 1 or any. - Arad 21:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Nice composition, high qaulity and interesting subject howevert it is a bit blurry - particularly at the left hand edge of the far building. Witty lama 02:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Maybe it's because of noise reduction. Please check the file history and look at the older version. I appreciate your opinion on that one too. Arad 02:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I would suggest running an unsharp mask on it. This typically does not add much noise and makes the lines very crisp.. I hesitate supporting when its so blurry. drumguy8800 - speak 05:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment -- you should have uploaded your NR attempt as a different file. The original is a Commons featured picture and it's probably not a good idea to mess with it. howcheng {chat} 16:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I think you agree that this one is much better than the old file. I didn't mess with it and i wouldn't upload it if i thought that it's not better than the original. Arad 19:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I fixed the blur a bit but I can't do better. Arad 19:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I reverted the first photo back to the original upload. Bypass your browser's cache if you can't see it. howcheng {chat} 21:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose per noise and soft focus near left hand side of building. HighInBC 21:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak support edit 2. Despite the technical problems, this is still a very good image. --Tewy 23:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Edit 2. Nice lighting and a good job considering the camera it was taken with --Fir0002 12:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose: I wouldn't be surprised if the lighting is like that every night - in that case, it should be easy to get a better picture than this. It's blurry and seems to me to be slanted to the right. Useful for its article but certainly not FP material IMO. --Yummifruitbat 19:11, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Edit 2. Per Fir0002. Nauticashades 19:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Thanks for your fix, Fir0002, but whether you compressed the image too much or it was your process but it made the image very pix elated in full res especially on the main building. Can you fix that? it looks like Jpeg artifacts. Arad 21:54, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Edit 2 per Fir0002. --jjron 02:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Yummifruitbat. --KFP 22:24, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  • If you guys think you can get a better shot go on and try it your self. Arad 00:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Arad, that's not a helpful response. The fact that nobody happens to have uploaded a better picture is not grounds for featuring a substandard one. It just strikes me that the location has been designed to be photogenic, so the fact that someone has taken a shot with 'nice lighting' is to be expected. An FP of these buildings would have to be of very high quality, and this one isn't - it doesn't even appear to have been taken using a tripod. --Yummifruitbat 06:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I didn't say "The fact that nobody happens to have uploaded a better picture is not grounds for featuring a substandard one.". I said this picture is very well taken and having a better shot is going to be very difficult. Perhaps the lighting is the same every night, but this has a good quality in my humble opinion. Arad
  • I'm not sure that was precisely the tone of your comment, but civility notwithstanding, I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree about the quality of this photo - I suspect that, were someone with a high-quality camera and a tripod to have a go, the result would be considerably better than this... and as this building is unlikely to be going anywhere in the near future, I'd like to hope that someone will at some point, and upload their photos here. Then perhaps we'll have a featureworthy picture - until then we've just got a reasonably attractive building, not especially well portrayed - in my humble opinion. --Yummifruitbat 13:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Fir0002s Edit TomStar81 (Talk) 00:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


Not promoted