Wikipedia:Picture peer review

Picture peer review was a staging area for potential Featured Picture Candidates (FPCs).

This review was a useful "spot check" before making a formal FPC nomination – a working area where you can get some creative feedback, request help with useful pictures that might need minor editing, or advice with finding the best article that they illustrate – giving that nomination its best possible chance of promotion.

Note: "peer review" usually implies a group of authoritative reviewers who are equally familiar with and expert in the subject. The process represented by this page is not a formal academic peer review in that sense. Images that undergo this process cannot be assumed to have greater authority than any other.

For general advice on editing pictures prior to uploading, see Wikipedia:How to improve image quality.

For the specific criteria against which FPCs are judged, see Wikipedia:What is a featured picture?

To see recent changes, purge the page cache

Shortcut

WP:PPR

Featured content:

Featured picture tools:

Suggestions for Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates

USNS Mercy and Rainbow

I have enjoyed seeing this photo every time I look at this article. I had a little free time and found out I could nominate photos to be featured. This is the one I always think of as the best on Wikipedia (that I have seen mind you), and I thought I would nominate it for at least peer review to get input.

Nominated by: AContributor (talk) 01:49, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Cool photo -- could probably be improved with some judicious cropping, especially of the blank water in foreground. Maybe try centering the rainbow? Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 03:42, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does the shoreline really follow that parabola shape? Also, the sky is grainy. MER-C 07:22, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File:060608-N-6501M-003 edit.jpg

edited version

I compensated for the lens distortion, darkened the sky slightly (to compensate for the slight overexposure there), applied some light sharpening and contrast increasing, and selectively blurred the sky to reduce the noise. The forground was cropped out as it didn't really add anything.Noodle snacks (talk) 13:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Much improved, thanks. The grainy sky may preclude promotion to FP. Pete Tillman (talk) 04:57, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Sea Cucumber

Aesthetically appealing, the subject is hard to photograph itself and the photography result is a perfect example of scattered/soft light. It portraits marine diversity, natural morphology that evolved in a curious, interesting form. High res image, low noise, unintervented by editing software, well compressed, can work as wallpaper image.

Nominated by: Abestrobi (talk) 02:14, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Can I ask straight away how sure you are that this is a sea cucumber? It doesn't look like any sea cucumber I've ever seen. I'm not convinced it's even an echinoderm, and I'd want a pretty conclusive identification to convince me it was a holothuroidean - it looks more like some type of coral. Which then raises the next issue with this picture in that it really needs a species ID (at least a genus) for encyclopaedic value. At the moment I'm wondering whether this should be removed from the article until a positive ID can be made. Re the picture itself I would doubt it would succeed at FPC due largely to ordinary composition, including being cutoff at top, bottom and side, and uncertain focus. I also can't understand why this is over 3MB when it's only 1600 x 1072px - that's not "well compressed", this wouldn't need to be any more than 1MB tops. OK, will leave it there. --jjron (talk) 14:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Eggs

It's a high-quality image that succinctly illustrates the difference in size between various species of bird eggs.

Nominated by: Ham Pastrami (talk) 11:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Nice job, but people at FPC will cite color splotches on the ostrich egg and a possibly request more sharpness.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 22:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's a good comparative image, but at a quick glance there appears to be a Depth of Field issue. It appears that a narrow DOF has been used, probably due to the lighting, and the focus is approximately at the top of the chicken egg. This leaves the bulk of the ostrich egg and also the quail eggs a little out of focus. I would personally doubt it's chances at FPC for those reasons. --jjron (talk) 15:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Geranium maculatum

Brightly lit, little noise, high resolution... if you think it needs to be edited feel free.

Nominated by: Qb | ^{your 2 cents} 16:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

It's a pretty picture, but I would think it would be unlikely to succeed at FPC. It seems to have a very narrow depth of field, probably too narrow, especially for a top down shot. There is a clear region in focus, but with DOF so narrow there is probably not enough. The bottom edges of the lower petals in particular are uncomfortably out of focus. Please note the filename Image:Smithsoniangardens5.jpg is also very undescriptive - the filename should suggest what the image is, such as an identification of the flower. It is also not used in any articles, which is a requirement for FP. --jjron (talk) 14:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Rose at University of the Pacific

I think that the resolution is good, the noise is low and little, the focus is tight, and the picture is balanced. I am not good at computer editing of images, so feel free to tinker if you can improve the image.

Nominated by: ApeironCalamity (talk) 06:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Distracting, cluttered background. Spikebrennan (talk) 18:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with the Spikebrennan's comment. A cropping would serve you well. Otherwise, it's a nice picture.

Seconder

Red roses

a beautiful image of Roses in spring. First time nominating need Comments also I want to know if it has featured picture quality.

Nominated by: Sasukekun22 (talk) 08:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I like this, it has some very strong elements. Pictorially, the lighting is good and descriptive, water droplets are wonderful and where it's sharp, it's easily sharp and detailed enough for FP. It's high resolution, there's no unpleasant noise and the bokeh is quite attractive. A smaller aperture would have ruined visual depth and wouldn't have rendered the foreground rosebud appreciably sharper. However, intrusive, distracting elements like that bud and the over-exposed white flowers bottom right would most likely be enough to attract more opposes than supports at FPC. A couple of pointers: a 10% crop in from both sides would frame the subject much better; there's a dead (white) pixel to clone out bottom left; for encyclopedic value, and for any chance at all at FPC, you'd have to accurately identify the species on the image description page and in the caption. It's a quality photo, despite all that.--mikaul^talk 18:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Nominated at FPC as Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Red Roses by Sasukekun22. --jjron (talk) 08:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Le grand foyer

Following on from this successful nomination I noticed this image. It's featured on the German and Spanish Wikipedia's as well as on Commons. An image that showed more of the rather impressive looking ceiling (such as the one found here) might be better but this seems to fulfil all the criteria. Guest9999 (talk) 14:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated by: Guest9999 (talk) 14:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Now nominated see Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Le grand foyer

Seconder

Encyclopedic, well composed, well exposed (especially for difficult indoor lighting), good technical condition (excellent really, for ISO 1600)... Definitely go for a nomination! Thegreenj 23:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kayleigh Pearson

This is my first time nominating a picture, so I thought I'd get some advice from an experienced head here first. I read the criteria for the featured picture review and it seemed to tick every box. I didn't want nominate it straight away in case it didn't meet the criteria set. Thanks!

Nominated by: --Jimbo^[online] 22:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

It's not a stand-out FP candidate. You could improve image quality greatly, without reducing encyclopedic value, by downsampling to something like 2500x1700 pixels, but I doubt this would improve its FP chances. It's a little blurry and noisy, the girl is very centrally composed and it's generally not striking enough to prompt FPC reviewers to want to see it on the main page. Facial expression is great, having said that, and I personally prefer this kind of spontaneous, flash-lit shot to the clichéd, pseudo-glamourous shots that normally end up on these bio pages.--mikaul^talk 18:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A criticism you see quite often on FP is "background is distracting" - for example, see this. Admittedly, shots of celebrities on good backgrounds are hard to get, but you might receive that criticism anyway. 137.205.179.218 (talk) 16:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Angel through the trees

Good hi-res shot from an unusual angle

Nominated by: Leeplonker (talk) 03:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

One big thing working against this would be that there is already a FP of the Angel of the North - . While this doesn't disqualify a second version being featured, personally I can't see that this photo provides any further information about the sculpture. Another option would be to go for a Delist and Replace nomination. While this one has some advantages (e.g., size) over the existing version, I find the lighting for example better on the existing version. Thanks for the contribution. --jjron (talk) 13:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I find the trees to simply distract from the main topic, and I don't see why seeing it through trees would be a more informative, featured-picture-esque viewpoint. It doesn't give any more information on the topic either. The size is an improvement, however, but doesn't do anything for me personally. SGGH ^speak! 15:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Exploded computer 6

webcam?

This began as an effort to display various computer peripherals and ended up as the mother of all computer diagrams. I used a current FP (which would be delisted in favor of this one) as a base, and expanded it greatly. However, since I am not the original author, the perspective is only approximately whatever the original creator used, and is "cluttered," removing focus from the main monitor/CPU area. Also, while the numbers are more international English labels may be more appropriate here. Any ideas?--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 21:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated by: HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 21:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I think the whole picture is extremely helpful. I'm not so sure about the English labels, because you have a pretty good description, in multiple languages, no less. It's also very good-looking; the colors are easy to look at. I would go for it, but wait for some other opinions. Elephantissimo (talk) 02:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. The international documentation was already present for the parts included in the current FP, but adding it for the new items is tedious. Is there a place on the Commons where I can ask for help localizing? Also: does it need a webcam?--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 01:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - How about speakers? Thegreenj 01:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think if you have an iPod, a webcam would be a good addition.
Would there be any copyright issues with the depiction of the iPod? Guest9999 (talk) 20:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, considering I got it from a free-to-use image. (The link is on the image page.) Does it need to be black or grey so it's more neutral? No other item here is associated with a specific company, but the iPod is so generic... (Also: speakers are on the way!)--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 21:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Although I'm normally big on the "iPod is an mp3 player but not all mp3 players are iPods" I' have to agree that the iPod is the best way of characterising an mp3 player. Webcam would be nice but I could only find this (png) on Commons and this (svg) on OpenClipArt. Although the first is probably more typical of a webcam the second has the benifit of already being svg. /Lokal_Profil 23:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm going for a unified, generic, stylized look of the hardware. (That's why I'm worried about the distinctly non-generic iPod and its color.) I'd (more likely: I'll) have to create the webcam from what already exists in the image, much like how I created everything else new. Speaking of which, how are the speakers? They're based off of this image.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 03:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I tried a webcam and it looked flat. (It's built out of curves, which is harder than the semi-axonometric boxes.) So unless you want me to put the lens inside the monitor, I don't think a webcam is happening. It should be good enough already.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 11:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        The speakers are nice. Possibly the image on the side could be usd as a webcam but otherwise just skip it. ANyhow the image turned out very nice. /Lokal _Profil 20:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder: I'll nominate this myself, then...--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 19:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I personally would run this as a "delist and replace" nom for the current FP. However, if the consensus is that it has changed significantly, it can go through the normal procedure.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 03:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Waterfall cascade

It meets a lot of the criteria for a featured picture. I've never used this process before, so if this doesn't stand a chance, close/delete it :). 16:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Nominated by: Seraphim♥Whipp 16:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I think the showstopper here is the lack of encyclopedic value - is this particular water feature identifiable with Lyons (in a similar manner as, say, the Eiffel Tower)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MER-C (talk • contribs)

I honestly have no idea. Partly why I brought it for review :). Seraphim♥Whipp 13:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Pelargonium

Shows leaves and petals of the pelargonium flower. Credit to the fine folks over at WP:Plants for identifying the flower. Love the comments, feel free to give them. Thanks. Qb | ^{your 2 cents} 13:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated by: Qb | ^{your 2 cents} 13:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I like it. It's big and detailed, verging on oversharpened but not so that noise is either missing or too obvious. If you can find out what the species is, I'd be prepared to have a closer look & maybe second it for FPC. ~~"Pretty pink flowers" is pretty meaningless to an encyclopedia reader. You basically have a good, descriptive image without an equally descriptive caption, which is crucial for this kind of shot.~~ Er, weird... I could have sworn this had no caption... sorry! Give me a chance to run it through the tweaking machine and I'll get back. --mikaul^talk 18:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon me while I squeal with excitement! I have alot more I took today, I'll throw some up in my gallery and maybe you can take a looksie and perhaps some comments. Thanks! Qb | ^{your 2 cents} 23:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seconder

Collection of Flowers

Its a beautiful image, and, in my view, pretty encyclopedic since it shows the full flower. Only snag... I have no clue what kinda flower it is. Comments and criticim please!

Nominated by: Qb | ^{your 2 cents} 14:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

They're pansies. The photo itself is pretty, but not too strong technically; detail isn't great, and there are some sharpening halos. The composition is OK, but I find the unfocused flowers on the right and left distracting. Check out the featured flowers for an idea of what is expected technically and compositionally. Thegreenj 02:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mm... I see what you mean. I think it could benefit from some serious cropping to get out the right unfocused flowers. I'll see what I can shake up. Qb | ^{your 2 cents} 13:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Aren't they violas?~~ I don't rate this one anywhere near as highly as the other one you posted above. It's too noisy, over-sharpened, posterised and harshly-lit to cut it next to existing flower FPs. <edit> It seems pansies are violas, althought I'd say these were very unlike what people would normally call pansies. --mikaul^talk 18:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Sunset near Lelystad

This is my first attempt at anything like this, and because I don't know a lot about the featured picture process, I would like to see what some more experienced people think about it before submitting this photograph for FP. I've had a quick read-through of WP:FP?, and nothing strikes me as being "wrong" with this picture according to those guidelines. I took it myself, so there is no problem with licensing, etc. If there are any problems let me know what and how they can be addressed; cheers!

Nominated by: -- THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 11:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

As a start, I'd reread guideline #2... Thegreenj 02:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Bugger. There's no way I can fix that, is there? -- THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 08:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, your camera is 7.2 megapixels (3072 x 2304), so unless you had set the resolution at VGA, there should be a larger file somewhere. There are still encyclopedic hurdles that I think this may struggle at. It doesn't really illustrate Lelystad or Ijsselmeer particularly well; there are no identifiable landmarks, so this could be a sunset about anywhere. Thegreenj 22:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, I dunno how to check that, and I think it may have on VGA cause I don't think I have anything else. Agree with you on the encyclopedic point, though. I'm willing to withdraw this review; do I take this template off, or just wait it out for a given time period? -- THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 09:25, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - It'll be archived once the page fills up; you don't have to do anything. Just BTW, if your camera is on VGA, I'd switch to a higher resolution. While 7.2 MP really is larger than most practical use, VGA is too small for anything but computer display. Unless you're really memory-starved, somewhere in the middle may be better. Whatever suits you, of course. Thegreenj 20:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Thanks for your help, Thegreenj. I shall remember your advice when I go search for pictures to upload next time! -- THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 07:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Gothenburg's Turtle Shell Roll

Black & white photo held by the South Australian Museum records. The turtle shell was engraved by the 18 survivors of the SS Gothenburg who managed to reached Holbourne Island on two lifeboats in February 1875. Because rescue was uncertain, the survivors engraved ship details and their names on the concave side of a large turtle shell, in the hope that it would be found in the future.

It is believed, although not certain, that the photograph was taken by the Adelaide School of Photography in July 1875. Free of copyright restriction. The actual turtle shell was presented to the South Australian Museum in 1932 by Mr W.D. Cleland, brother of John Cleland, one of the survivors.

Nominated by: Spy007au (talk) 07:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Thanks for your submission. It's an interesting historical artifact, but not much of a photo, I'm afraid. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 17:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your feedback, but the photo is 130+ years old and the only known copy. In my opinion, it appears to meet all the criteria. Regards, Spy007au (talk) 02:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Black Moshannon Bog Panorama

Panoramic view of the lake and bog at Black Moshannon State Park in Pennsylvania, taken from the viewing paltform on the bog trail boardwalk

This panorama is in the featured article on Black Moshannon State Park and during the peer review and FAC processes for that article, several users commented quite favorably about it, so I thought I would nominate it here and get some expert advice. The right third has some exposure issues and there is a slight stitching flaw at the lake horizon there too. I know that some FP candidates are edited, adjusted, etc. and I would be glad to upload the original eleven photos that went into the panorama if that would be helpful. I also would be OK with a cropped version if the right side is too bad. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:05, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated by: Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:05, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

The right third is very dark compared to the rest, so I think it'd be best to give it a crop. Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 19:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The stitching problem is a major concern. Can you re-stitch the originals? Other than that, I find the main issue to be composition—I feel like the picture lacks a subject. Can you go back at about the same time of day and extend the panorama to the left, so that the water is framed by the shore? A little less sky and more land wouldn't hurt either. Thegreenj 20:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the comments. I stitched it with Autostitch and do not have another program (which is why I offered to upload the original 11 images used to make the panorama if someone else wants to adjust them and/or try stitching it again). I can try to go back there, but the bog will be very different in appearance (this was taken on a warm January day, now all the brown plants will be green). I guess my argument is the subject is the bog - it gives you a pretty good idea what it looks like to stand on the observation platform and look around. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Top of Princetop University building

The top of a building at Princeton University.

As with the other picture I added, it shows, in detail, the architecture and style of the buildings at Princeton. Would love some criticism.

Nominated by: Queerbubbles | ^{Leave me Some Love} 00:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I'd suggest standing farther away from the subject and using a telephoto lens/zoom in, as you get perspective distortion, which is evident here. You'd also increase the enc value because you get more of the building in. MER-C 07:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Trinity explosion, 1945

An icon of the Atomic Age. I recently uploaded a larger version, which is probably why this photo hasn't been nominated before. The New Mexico Museum of Fine Arts in Santa Fe has a print of this photo on permanent display, and I've spent a long time studying it there (and here). The WWI German helmet shape, the One-Eye Monster, Death, the Destroyer of Worlds... An amazing photograph. Berlyn Brixner was the photographer, and some details are there. Pete Tillman (talk) 06:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated by: Pete Tillman (talk) 06:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Great photo - well once I realised it wasn't an old army helmet, and saw what it really was! My only concern would be quality. At this image size, a filesize of 72 KB is pretty tiny. That is probably mainly because the blacks have been largely compressed into almost nothing but pure black. But, geez, I want to say nominate anyway. --jjron (talk) 08:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)*Note: make sure you replace the original with this in at least some articles if you do nominate. Can I also add that I rather like the scale and time measure that are included on the original that are sadly lacking here. --jjron (talk) 08:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The more I look at it, the more I think it would probably look a bit more balanced with a bit of the black cropped off the bottom. In the original that works to hold the writing, in this one it's just a big patch of nothing. --jjron (talk) 13:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the comments. Yeah, I'll stick it in some of those articles -- meant to earlier, but...

Cropping the bottom would be appropriate -- I think that's how the museum's print was presented. Which, incidentally, was unsigned, ims. And we could reference the alternate shot with the time & scale bar on the nomination.

First cut at a crop:

Needs redo on a real image-processor, but hows the composition? Trim the top too? Feel free to take a whack <GG>

Have a look at The Trinity Test: Eyewitnesses. If that stuff don't raise up the hair on the back of your neck, I'll eat my socks.

"Don't fly south." Indeed. In haste, Pete Tillman (talk) 18:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have had a try at an edit. Slight straighten, crop, took out some marks, and gave a small sharpen and noise reduction. The quality isn't great, and there's some funny things in the black part, it could be artifacting. Also this version doesn't seem to have the same detail on the explosion itself as the small version looks to have. Where did you actually get this version? I wonder if there's one of better quality around at this sort of size. --jjron (talk) 07:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've put up another small version that really highlights the problems in the background. Obviously this is not there as a suggested edit, it's just showing up some issues that are present. Sure there's considerations to do with age, rarity, difficulty of capture, etc, but I think a lot of these problems are to do with this particular digital conversion. For example there's things that are significant enough to be visible on the small version if they were part of the photo, but they're not there. Hmmm... --jjron (talk) 08:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From http://www.lanl.gov/news/photos/historical.shtml Ah -- these are two different times. The bigger photo is at +0.016 sec. the smaller at 0.025 sec. I'm guessing the background flaws are on the original film -- see the photogs comments, ref'd above.

Thanks for your efforts, which I'll look at in more detail this PM. In haste, Pete Tillman (talk) 18:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've uploaded a bit larger version of the 0.025 sec. photo:

and a +/- matching version (captioned, scale bar) of the 0.016 sec. photo:

I looked pretty hard, and wasn't able to find any files bigger than the first version (above), now recaptioned correctly as 0.016 sec. So that's the one we have to work with, to meet the 1000x1000px standard.

I notice that your edit2, above, seems to be bit grayer tone than the slightly-sepia original. Do you see that? And do you think the blotchy background could be cleaned out, perhaps painted over with pure black, which is what the camera would have really seen at 10-20x solar brilliance in the fireball? Brixner did a remarkable job with the tools he had available -- these are 16mm movie stills. Anyway, I agree that the 0.025 sec photo is the more dramatic and better-exposed, but it looks like 540x410px is the largest file online. Thoughts? Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 05:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, OK, now it makes a bit more sense if they're different images. What a shame a bigger version of the 0.025s one isn't available. Yes, I noticed somewhere (I think after I uploaded) that mine had a slightly different tone (though I wouldn't say the original had sepia toning). Not sure why, it could have come in when I did the noise reduction perhaps. I still have my original edit (straighten and crop only) saved as a TIFF, so that should be identical tonings to the original.
I also thought of just cloning the background to remove those flaws, possibly just slightly off pure black; just not sure how much editing should be done :-). When I brought them out in that Edit 2 it looked pretty clear that it wasn't just stuff off the original photo; there looked to be some characteristic jpeg artifacting and possibly posterisation, which is a bit in line with my earlier comment about the filesize being very small for that resolution. There also appeared to some smudges and things like that. However I was also wondering whether some of it was perhaps smoke, and that was one reason I hesitated before removing it. What do you think - should we try removing it all? --jjron (talk) 08:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why not give it a shot? That sort of thing is way beyond my skill (& software). Pure black or something close could be counted as restoration (kind sorta...) FWIW, I don't see the background weirdness in Image:Trinity.016sec.jpg, at right. As to tone, I noticed that changing the view angle on my LCD screen, even just a little, significantly changes the tone... Perhaps fiddling with brightness and/or contrast would bring out the fireball details better. I'll fool with it a bit tonight in iPhoto, but so far that program seems to mangle archival files pretty badly when you crop. Which also may reflect my level of skill in using it.... <rueful grin>

As to what happened -- filming a nuclear blast, then sitting around for 60 years -- not too surprising it looks a bit ragged. I wonder if Mr. Brixner is still with us? Still, I doubt that Los Alamos encouraged its photographers to take their work home.... And who knows who digitized the thing, and with what skill? I'll have to ask, next time I'm at the museum in Santa Fe, where they got their file. I'm guessing they borrowed the original, or a 1st-gen copy neg. It would also be interesting to see which of these two they printed. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 18:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about this? Image:Trinity explosion2-edit2a.jpg -- all I did was touch up the tint a bit. IPhoto didn't mangle it! And the BG looks OK, though I didn't mess with that. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 22:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The remaining big problem I see is the overexposed lower left corner, most obviously in the leftmost dust-cloud "skirt". IPhoto doesn't seem to have a "dodge" option to tone this down. Does your software? TIA, Pete Tillman (talk) 23:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"FWIW, I don't see the background weirdness in Image:Trinity.016sec.jpg"; yes, that's probably right, as with the 0,025sec version. That's why I've been saying that I think it's an issue with the digital conversion on the 'big' version, rather than necessarily being a problem with the photo itself. In fact I rather wonder whether the big one hasn't just been upsampled from a small version, which would explain why it seems to lack the quality of the smaller ones.
Re working on the background, I had a bit of a play with it, but given the level of the problems it almost seems beyond repair, at least to me; it would need a lot of careful work. Re the overexposed lower left corner, I think you want to burn it rather than dodge it. I tried a bit of burning there in Photoshop; it did look a little better, but there's not a lot of information to burn in and it was just a quick try. Your edit2a has a bit of sepia tinge to it now; not really sure what you were trying to achieve with it? Do you think there's a version worth nominating? --jjron (talk) 03:03, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Your edit2a has a bit of sepia tinge" -- I was trying to match the tone in Image:Trinity Test Fireball 25ms.jpg, perhaps not very successfully. Anyway, here's another version, with various fiddles: see what you think...

Uh-oh, think I overdid it on the lower-right corner, trying to cut the lower-left bloom.

"I rather wonder whether the big one hasn't just been upsampled from a small version..." FWIW, I played with Image:Trinity.016sec.jpg a bit -- it definitely has less detail when you blow it up. So who knows.

I guess I'll go back and fiddle some more tomorrow, but to my eye, Image:Trinity explosion2-edit2b.jpg is the best yet. Thanks again for your help with this -- hopefully you can add another "assist" to your stellar FP record! Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 04:44, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I don't think it's the tone in 0.025s that makes it look better, I don't really think the sepia helps this one. Re 0.016s having less detail when you 'blow it up', that's the point I'm making about upsampling, it can't add detail that's not there, it can only estimate what should be there.

Anyway, I went back to my original 'cropped only' version and did some different fixes; no sharpening or noise reduction this time, so tone should be more faithful to the original. I selectively adjusted the levels on that troublesome lower left corner, and then another levels adjustment slightly darkened the whole image for a bit more contrast. I then fixed a number of what looked to be flaws on the photo and did a bit of work to improve the background. I think that's about as much time as I want to spend on it. Have a look, see how you think it compares to your latest edit, and I'll leave it up to you. --jjron (talk) 12:37, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think your last edit is probably about as good as we're likely to get -- I like it better than any of mine, including the work files I tossed.

What next? This is all new to me. Thanks again, Pete Tillman (talk) 18:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What next? If you want to try it out at FPC head over there and create a nomination. If you have any questions about how to do it, just ask, or I'll do it for you if you'd rather. Despite the work done on it I suspect quality may be an issue - but you don't know if you don't try. If it does no good there, it could be a good candidate for Valued Pictures instead (if and when that gets up and running). --jjron (talk) 08:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Nominated at FPC as Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/The Trinity nuclear test, 1945 by Pete Tillman. --jjron (talk) 14:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ansel Adams, San Ildefonso dancers, 1942

A rare example of an Ansel Adams ethnic portrait, and a very nice one. The little girl on the steps is a nice touch. An unjustifiably neglected image, in my view, and one that improves with repeated viewing.

Nominated by: Pete Tillman (talk) 05:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I'm not sure about this one. It is an interesting photo to look at, but strikes me more than anything else as basically an old snapshot taken by a famous photographer. I'm also not sure on how much encyclopaedic value it has, at least as currently used - it's sole use is in an article on the place it was apparently taken. To my eye it also appears a bit overexposed - it is certainly very bright to look at. I'd like to hear what others think though, as I often seem to be harsher on these old photos than other voters. --jjron (talk) 03:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Halftoning has replaced most of the interesting detail, I think. It also tends to fill in blacks and bleach out whites, which is why it looks over-exposed. I'm not sure it has enough enc value to mitigate this, and I'd say its authorship was way down the list of redeeming features from an enc point of view; Adams was notable for stunning landscapes, not his snapshots. --mikaul^talk 19:06, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Princeton Walkway

Rmved Edit #2 since it didnt do anything... this is #4, with some straightening and some cropping.

The image is of a walkay at Princeton. I believe it shows the architecture well, as well as providing an artistic feel. I am looking for feedback, good or bad. As this is my first submission, I do not have illusions of grandeur. Simply honest comments regarding how I can better improve my style as well as my contributions.

Edited Its as best as I can do with Picasa. I dont have the funds for the better editing software. If someone can recommend a great budget one that would be beautiful. Feel free to edit at will, however, if you believe that can work. Thanks! Queerbubbles | ^{Leave me Some Love} 09:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated by: Queerbubbles | ^{Leave me Some Love} 19:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I really like the composition, and, but for technical quality, this would be a really good photo, perhaps even enough for FP. However, in its current state, it is soft, overexposed, tilted, and noisy. For sharpness and noise, there is nothing you can do except to use a better camera. However, overexposure can be fixed by metering for the bright area outdoors. If you have the option, manual exposure is the optimal choice. If you can, try a reshoot with a better camera and exposure and post the results back up here—I'm interested in how it would look. Thegreenj 03:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, budget software recommendation: the GIMP. I don't use it, but it's basically a free version of Photoshop. That said, you can't fix everything with editing; there's no way to add detail or recover areas overexposed to the point that they have no detail. Thegreenj 00:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Third edit, got the tree on the other side of the archway to show through. Queerbubbles | ^{Leave me Some Love} 00:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - ...at the expense of a flat, green sky. This method works OK once in a while with blown skies when the blended layer is a gradient, but I'd just leave this alone. Right now, it's a good picture to illustrate the architecture of Princeton, but I don't think the technical quality will be salvageable for FP no matter the editing. The one simple thing to correct that would improve the photo immensely, though, is tilt—try using the lamps or the arch walls as a reference point. Thegreenj 01:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I actually did straighten it before I stuck it in here... and when I open the utility again, it seems to line up fine. Queerbubbles | ^{Leave me Some Love} 09:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Hmmm... here's about where I'd put it. I think the camera was pointed up a little, so parallel lines (like the sides of the arches) actually begin to converge, so trying to straighten based on just one of them is going to be inaccurate. Thegreenj 20:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like your #3 edit, but would note that it's a bit off-center, based on the basal butresses of the arches. but nice tone, nice composition -- quite an effective photo. You might try cropping the left a bit for balance. Pete Tillman (talk) 05:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, I didnt even notice that the cropping was off! This is why I love extra eyes! Queerbubbles | ^{Leave me Some Love} 09:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Picture Peer Review Archives

Picture Peer Review Archives Mainpage

Shortcut

WP:PPRA

Please cut and paste nominations to be archived from the Picture peer review mainpage to the top of the appropriate archive page, creating a new archive (by nomination date) when necessary.

2012: January - March | April - June | July - September | October - December
2011: January - March | April - June | July - September | October - December
2010: January - March | April - June | July - September | October - December
2009: January - March | April - June | July - September | October - December
2008: January - March | April - June | July - September | October - December
2007: January - June | July - December
2006: January - December

Pictures that need placing on an appropriate article

If you have an excellent picture, but can't think where to put it, add it to the section below. Similarly if you need help in writing a new article on the subject of a photo, request it below. If you are unsure of what plant or animal is in a picture please ask at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science.

Pictures that need moving from other Wikipedias

If you have found a good picture on another language Wikipedia that would benefit the English Wikipedia, suggest it below. The image may need confirmation on its identification and assistance with translating the caption and moving to Commons before placing on the equivalent English language article.