Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:GlenHelenGorge NorthernTerritory Panorama.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:GlenHelenGorge NorthernTerritory Panorama.jpg, featured[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Nov 2009 at 07:21:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info all by 99of9 -- 99of9 (talk) 07:21, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Support -- as nominator 99of9 (talk) 07:21, 23 October 2009 (UTC)- Support --Kosiarz-PL 07:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Comment -- No profile embeded in the file and there are some large darker spots visible in the upper left area. Sting (talk) 10:59, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Thanks for your comment and attention to detail helping to improve the image. I had accidentally stripped the EXIF while cut/paste cropping in GIMP. I've resaved with the original data and cloned dark sky regions. See what you think now. --~ (talk) 13:11, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- Are you sure about your color profile ? When I download the image, open it in Firefox (v.3.5.3 – color mode by default) and compare it to the one opened in Photoshop, it's displayed like if it hasn't any profile embedded and with pretty harsh saturation, well far from sRGB rendering. Btw, when I open it in Photoshop, it tells me there's no profile embedded in the image. Weird, isn't it? Sting (talk) 12:44, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
- I'm a bit out of my depth on this one. I'm sure the camera only takes sRGB (that is the default and I haven't changed it), and each image is marked as such. Would it have been mysteriously changed during the use of hugin/GIMP/Picasa? I hardly did any manipulation, so I doubt anything would have changed it. I use firefox and it looks accurate... 99of9 (talk) 11:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
- Open it in IE which doesn't handle color management and you'll notice the colors are the same than in FF, which means no sRGB profile is embedded in the image. But if you think these saturated colors with imo an unreal sky are ok... it's your taste. Anyway, I'm uploading a version with the sRGB profile embedded (no other change has been made) so you can see what I'm meaning. If you don't like it, just revert to your previous version. Sting (talk) 21:24, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for embedding the profile. I'm very happy to have it in there. 99of9 (talk) 03:28, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
- Open it in IE which doesn't handle color management and you'll notice the colors are the same than in FF, which means no sRGB profile is embedded in the image. But if you think these saturated colors with imo an unreal sky are ok... it's your taste. Anyway, I'm uploading a version with the sRGB profile embedded (no other change has been made) so you can see what I'm meaning. If you don't like it, just revert to your previous version. Sting (talk) 21:24, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
- I'm a bit out of my depth on this one. I'm sure the camera only takes sRGB (that is the default and I haven't changed it), and each image is marked as such. Would it have been mysteriously changed during the use of hugin/GIMP/Picasa? I hardly did any manipulation, so I doubt anything would have changed it. I use firefox and it looks accurate... 99of9 (talk) 11:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
- Are you sure about your color profile ? When I download the image, open it in Firefox (v.3.5.3 – color mode by default) and compare it to the one opened in Photoshop, it's displayed like if it hasn't any profile embedded and with pretty harsh saturation, well far from sRGB rendering. Btw, when I open it in Photoshop, it tells me there's no profile embedded in the image. Weird, isn't it? Sting (talk) 12:44, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
- Support good stitching work, interesting, well exposed. I had cropped the building on the right but this is a detail. --Ikiwaner (talk) 08:23, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
- Support Jacopo Werther (talk) 09:39, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Technical quality insufficient for FP: Looks somewhat blurry and washed out in full resolution, especially on the sides. --NEURO ⇌ 11:00, 24 October 2009 (UTC)- Support Great pano. Not like some of those mind-numbingly long, narrow slots... -- Petritap (talk) 13:20, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
- Support Yes - good pano --Herby talk thyme 13:33, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Per NEUROtiker. —kallerna™ 13:05, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
- Info This discussion comes up every few weeks for panoramics with high resolution. 99of9 could have uploaded a downsampled image only and you would say that it's sharp now. However we should engage people to upload full resolution pictures (this one has almost 25 MP). Judging such large images on computer screens at 100% is nonsense because you actually look at a small zoomed area. Reduce to 50% on screen to get an idea how sharp an image will look as a printed poster. --Ikiwaner (talk) 21:12, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
- Info Ikiwaner is correct that I have not downsampled at all since (I even turned off the hugin default) since I wanted to provide users with as much information as possible. 99of9 (talk) 21:24, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
- IMHO lacking sharpness is not the only issue with this image as I pointed out above. As to downsampling or not downsampling: an image that is overall blurry contains redundant information (a form of w:Oversampling if you will). By downsampling you get rid of that redundancy but the information content is the same. Thus downsampling isn't always a bad thing. --NEURO ⇌ 22:25, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose I'm the first one to complain about seeing panoramas at full size, but a 1000 px high downsample still shows huge quality problems (noise in the sky) --S23678 (talk) 01:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 6 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Berthold Werner (talk) 09:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Panoramas
