Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Taj Mahal N-UP-A28-a.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:Taj Mahal N-UP-A28-a.jpg, featured
[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Oct 2012 at 09:29:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info created by Asitjain - uploaded by Asitjain - nominated by Colin -- Colin (talk) 09:29, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Support The classic Taj Mahal scene includes the building and gardens, making use of reflective symmetry in the water (see File:Taj Mahal 2002.JPG for example). This image instead is a study of the building alone. And what a detailed study it is. The very high resolution image offers superb EV and the side-lighting brings out the 3D concave/convex shapes. -- Colin (talk) 09:29, 28 September 2012 (UTC)- Support Great details; although I prefer artistic composition over details like in the one you referred, File:Taj Mahal-09.jpg and File:Taj Mahal-11.jpg. -- Jkadavoor (Jee) (talk) 10:05, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
- Support Regards, Peter Weis (talk) 10:37, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Comment It has some small stitching errors, but imo at least one of them ("head in the air") should be fixed.--Ivar (talk) 11:33, 28 September 2012 (UTC)- Most stitching errors are now fixed and it will be great, if the sky could have some cleaning and denoising. --Ivar (talk) 09:37, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- I've passed on some suggested fixes to Asitjain. Please note that a 69MP image absolutely does not "need" "denoising" in order to satisfy FP criteria that only "need" a 2MP image. While I agree that denoising should be a fairly easy improvement, I strongly feel such pixel-peeping issues should be politely made as a request/suggestion rather than stated as some kind of requirement. Colin (talk) 12:15, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- I agree and corrected myself, just wanted to say, that previous version had already very nice denoised sky. --Ivar (talk) 15:08, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- I've passed on some suggested fixes to Asitjain. Please note that a 69MP image absolutely does not "need" "denoising" in order to satisfy FP criteria that only "need" a 2MP image. While I agree that denoising should be a fairly easy improvement, I strongly feel such pixel-peeping issues should be politely made as a request/suggestion rather than stated as some kind of requirement. Colin (talk) 12:15, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- Most stitching errors are now fixed and it will be great, if the sky could have some cleaning and denoising. --Ivar (talk) 09:37, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- Support really lovely. Tomer T (talk) 16:36, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
- Support --JDP90 (talk) 17:41, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
- Support --Kadellar (talk) 18:31, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
- Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:15, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 13:01, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 10:05, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 13:15, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 04:27, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture
