Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Забайкальская пустыня.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Voting period ends on 13 Nov 2024 at 19:52:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Russia
Info created by Ted.ns - uploaded by Ted.ns - nominated by Till Niermann -- Till (talk) 19:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
Support -- Till (talk) 19:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)- Support Looks downsampled, but good nonetheless. — Rhododendrites talk | 22:51, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support per Rhododendrites. Exceptional landscape that looks almost surreal. -- Radomianin (talk) 23:05, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support Stunning mix of desert of snow dunes & glaciers, and light & darkness -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:34, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:24, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
Oppose I think it's rather small for a landscape and coming from a 5DII, and there's this other picture which is better IMO and at 45 Mpx: File:Before it rains.jpg --Kadellar (talk) 08:43, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
Comment Two pictures taken one day apart... Till (talk) 12:10, 5 November 2024 (UTC)- Comment I don't like this camera model card pulled here in Featured Pictures. It doesn't make sense. It encourages contributors to submit images of worse quality and remove EXIF. As long as photographer submits 18 Mpix photos from their Canon 60D, the images are ok, Featured worthy. God forbid the photographer uses the same lens in Canon 5Ds. Submitting full resolution 51 Mpix? Quality is bad, can't be Featured. Decreasing resolution to 30 Mpix to compensate average lens quality? You shouldn't decrease resolution, can't be Featured. Cropping a subject from a 51 Mpix image to create an 18 Mpix photo, because photographer can afford only one lens? It can't be Featured, because your camera is capable of 51 Mpix.--Tupungato (talk) 14:22, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- Comment Tupungato has a point here. I would always encourage fellow photographers to upload their photos in full resolution, but to be just we must judge high-resolution photos a bit differently. People sometimes think that taking photos with the newest cameras is much easier because the AF is so much better; but AF is not everything, actually it’s much more difficult to take pin-point sharp photos with today’s high-resolution cameras, especially when we talk about landscape or architecture photos where every detail matters. Lenses which appeared flawless on 12 or even 24 MPix cameras reveal significant aberrations and unsharp borders on 42, 50 or 62 Mpix cameras, also because the latter often drop the traditional on-sensor anti-alias filter which used to hide many fine details and defects; focussing needs more care, because even the slightest field curvature will visibly influence the final results; stopping down to ƒ/11 etc. becomes problematic because diffraction shows its effect very early. A practical solution, proposed by various users, is that we judge low-resolution or downscaled photos rather strictly (if somebody provides only about 6 Mpix, these 6 Mpix should be pin-point sharp and there should be no visible CAs, no noise etc.); be a bit more relaxed with 12 to 24 Mpix photos; and forgive some slight softness, small CAs, a little bit of noise etc. with photos > 36 Mpix. Of course there are exceptions – e.g. difficult wildlife photos often require significant cropping, so we must understand and accept that, too. – Aristeas (talk) 10:45, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
Weak support The other picture Kadellar links is definitely better, but it's a v different composition from this one Cmao20 (talk) 16:10, 5 November 2024 (UTC)- Support --Yann (talk) 20:11, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support per Rhododendrites. --SHB2000 (talk) 08:42, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
- Weak support per Cmao20. IMHO we can (and should) feature both photos. – Aristeas (talk) 10:45, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 13:36, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support Poco a poco (talk) 19:53, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
