Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Torres del Paine
Torres del Paine[edit]
- Reason
- High resolution image in great lighting conditions of an iconic rock formation. This is a vertical panorama of three images taken at about 7am, on an uncharacteristically bright, cloudless day. Regarding flaws, the composition isn't perfect, and perhaps the polariser blackens the sky a bit too much.
- Articles this image appears in
- Torres del Paine National Park, Cordillera del Paine
- Creator
- Stevage
- Support as nominator --Stevage 14:02, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose. Yeah, the polarisation of the sky is a bit OTT - that must have been some seriously clear blue sky. Fantastic looking scenery, but I'm not a fan of the composition. Doesn't look like the best vantage point and it feels a bit cramped and confused. And while it has plenty of resolution, the detail is fairly poor at 100%. Not suggesting you downsample it necessarily though. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 14:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- For context, see the alternative. Stevage 23:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- It looks like a better vantage point would be further up the slope to the left... You'd lose the reflection in the water, I suppose, but it would be a more complete and higher EV view IMO. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:20, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
- For context, see the alternative. Stevage 23:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose all - loss of detail due to JPEG artifacts. Also per Diliff. MER-C 09:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
- Not to nit-pick at this vote in particular, but I've seen jpeg artifacts misidentified increasingly frequently around FPC. They don't appear as noise or as general lack of sharpness; they look like 8x8 pixel squares. Jpeg artifacts aren't a major problem with this photo at 100%, and they're certainly not causing the detail loss here; diffraction (f/22!?) or optics is more likely, IMO. (FWIW, this is what detail loss from jpeg artifacts looks like.) Thegreenj 03:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed. With no disrespect to MER-C intended, I do think he does occasionally misdiagnose JPEG artifacts. There are some strange artifacts in the dark blue sky, but I suspect that it is sensor noise that the camera has attempted to perform in-camera reduction on (badly). It usually ends up as patchy, blobby artifacts on P&S cameras (which I assume was used in this case, as it doesn't seem to have the pixel level sharpness of a DSLR, even at f/22!). Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 08:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- Not to nit-pick at this vote in particular, but I've seen jpeg artifacts misidentified increasingly frequently around FPC. They don't appear as noise or as general lack of sharpness; they look like 8x8 pixel squares. Jpeg artifacts aren't a major problem with this photo at 100%, and they're certainly not causing the detail loss here; diffraction (f/22!?) or optics is more likely, IMO. (FWIW, this is what detail loss from jpeg artifacts looks like.) Thegreenj 03:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- Oddly enough, EXIF says it is a DSLR and a high-end one as well (Pentax K10D), the ISO was only 280 and the shutter speed was 1/125. At those settings, noise really shouldn't be a problem... MER-C 09:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- You're right. I hadn't had a good look at the EXIF, but with those settings and the camear there's not really any logical explanation for the poor image quality. It seems even more obvious in the sky of the alternative image, and I think there might actually be a bit of blocky JPEG artifacts in that one too by the looks of it. Stevage, what do you think? Is that image quality typical from your camera? Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 14:46, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- Noise is always worse in the blue channel and varies according to the chip; can be really bad with Sony DSLRs, maybe Pentax use the same chip? Other quality issues (softness, lack of contrast, fringing) are just cheap lens related, that said no DX lens is going to be impressive stopped right down. Weird "choice" of ISO/exposure for a straight auto setting, it has to be said. --mikaultalk 04:23, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
- True, I believe Pentax does/did use a Sony chip, as did Nikon until fairly recently. I've never seen a lens that unsharp though. Even the cheapest, crappiest lenses can produce better images. It actually looks a little upsampled to me. I'm not saying it has been - that's just what it looks like. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 08:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
- Noise is always worse in the blue channel and varies according to the chip; can be really bad with Sony DSLRs, maybe Pentax use the same chip? Other quality issues (softness, lack of contrast, fringing) are just cheap lens related, that said no DX lens is going to be impressive stopped right down. Weird "choice" of ISO/exposure for a straight auto setting, it has to be said. --mikaultalk 04:23, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
- You're right. I hadn't had a good look at the EXIF, but with those settings and the camear there's not really any logical explanation for the poor image quality. It seems even more obvious in the sky of the alternative image, and I think there might actually be a bit of blocky JPEG artifacts in that one too by the looks of it. Stevage, what do you think? Is that image quality typical from your camera? Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 14:46, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- Oddly enough, EXIF says it is a DSLR and a high-end one as well (Pentax K10D), the ISO was only 280 and the shutter speed was 1/125. At those settings, noise really shouldn't be a problem... MER-C 09:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose The reflections at the bottom of both pictures is mind-bending! Because the formations are so strange and interesting, you can't really tell where the rock ends and the water begins. Smaug123 (talk) 18:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Not promoted --Shoemaker's Holiday Over 184 FCs served 00:31, 10 August 2009 (UTC)