Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:MG-09-020 (Hospital Rivadavia (de Mugeres) – Buenos Aires).jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Apr 2020 at 14:10:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Argentina
- Info created by Anonymous - uploaded by Mauricio V. Genta - nominated/restored by Ezarate -- Ezarateesteban 14:10, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
- Support -- Ezarateesteban 14:10, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
- Comment Good quality. I would increase the contrast. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:15, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
- Done thanks!!! Ezarateesteban 17:28, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
- Not like this. I mean to increase light, not to increase dark areas. See File:Hospital Rivadavia de Mugeres – Buenos Aires.jpg. Yann
- Thank you @Yann: it was an error myself, I uploaded another version, also removed dust spots pointed by @BevinKacon: , regards!!! Ezarateesteban 19:38, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
- Done thanks!!! Ezarateesteban 17:28, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
- Comment - Super-grainy. Please provide the year (or, if not known, approximate year) of the photo and mention where you photographed/scanned it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:17, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
- Provided original file and date aproximateEzarateesteban 00:07, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
- I tried to reduce grainy denoising Ezarateesteban 00:20, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
- Provided original file and date aproximateEzarateesteban 00:07, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
(talk) 19:21, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Weak support- Good restoration and fairly good photo for 1890. My support isn't strong, though. We've seen sharper photos, even from the 19th century. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:28, 5 April 2020 (UTC)- Oppose the restored version seems have lost some details, see the trees on the right hand side. Looks like contrast is too high. The two tears at the bottom right of the image, the spot in front of the people in the road, spot near the 3rd column wall on the far left, all these problems have been ignored. The repair of the spot next to the lamp post on the left is half complete. Not quite an FP level restore yet.--BevinKacon (talk) 18:57, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose - Yes, I'm seeing the tears, etc. There's also damage near the left margin that hasn't been repaired. Changing my vote. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:47, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
- The two tears removed and more dust spots also, thanks!! Ezarateesteban 00:36, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
- There's still some damage on the left side. This is a challenging photo to restore. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:54, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
- I removed much more on left side thanks!! Ezarateesteban 12:41, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
- Still clearly damaged. This is a big job. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:29, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
- The two tears removed and more dust spots also, thanks!! Ezarateesteban 00:36, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
- This is a very big amount of restore work, it also looks the spot healing tool is being used alone. In blank areas such as the sky this is fine, but with details such as the road, the result is bad. You need to use other tools which involve selecting the repair source. I would recommend withdrawing the nomination for now.--BevinKacon (talk) 10:09, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
- Neutral Getting there ... Daniel Case (talk) 05:18, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Confirmed results: