Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Tornide väljak 2014.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:Tornide väljak 2014.jpg, not featured
[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Feb 2014 at 16:40:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info all by Urmas83 -- Urmas Haljaste (talk) 16:40, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Support -- Urmas Haljaste (talk) 16:40, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Question Is it a distorted panorama ? Are the walls "horizontal", in real ? Very nice place and shot, but I find it disappointingly unsharp at full size.--Jebulon (talk) 18:03, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
- The wall is actually turning about 40 degrees. Thee turn may be a bit smoother in real but there is always some kind of distortion in panorama. Even when the horizontals and verticals are strait. About the full size.. should I really resize it by 50%? Because then it will look sharp at full size. The thing is that bigger file allows you to have "closer look". Web browsers allow you to look the image at 100%, unfortunately there is no other option than "full size" and "fit to screen". By using image viewing or editing software you can zoom in more 200%, 300% etc.. so you can make every photo look unsharp. Now if I downsampled the image by 50% then basically the web browser would allow you to look the photo only at 50% size compared to the original photo. For sure it would look sharper. My question is, what't the point? Who am I kidding? --Urmas Haljaste (talk) 20:07, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry, but of course all your arguments are very well known and already read here since years. I don't want you to downsample nor to upsample your pictures. If you upload this picture at the size you took it, ok, then you took it unsharp, sorry. And by the way, downsampling does not make any picture sharper, just an illusion of sharpness... Something else: I think there is something disturbing with the light. It comes from right, but does not light the right nor the central tower, but only the right parts of the left towers... It is a strange effect of the distortion, in my opinion.--Jebulon (talk) 22:56, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
- First of all, don't be sorry. If you express your opinion and do it with good intentions you don't have to apologize. Secondly, if you have heared all these arguments but still don't get the point, it means you haven't learned anything in all these years. Illusion of sharpness?? Is a screen size photo an illusion? Is the painting on the wall real only when your nose touches it? And does it become an illusion when you step move away few steps? Think again. --Urmas Haljaste (talk) 10:07, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry, but of course all your arguments are very well known and already read here since years. I don't want you to downsample nor to upsample your pictures. If you upload this picture at the size you took it, ok, then you took it unsharp, sorry. And by the way, downsampling does not make any picture sharper, just an illusion of sharpness... Something else: I think there is something disturbing with the light. It comes from right, but does not light the right nor the central tower, but only the right parts of the left towers... It is a strange effect of the distortion, in my opinion.--Jebulon (talk) 22:56, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
- The wall is actually turning about 40 degrees. Thee turn may be a bit smoother in real but there is always some kind of distortion in panorama. Even when the horizontals and verticals are strait. About the full size.. should I really resize it by 50%? Because then it will look sharp at full size. The thing is that bigger file allows you to have "closer look". Web browsers allow you to look the image at 100%, unfortunately there is no other option than "full size" and "fit to screen". By using image viewing or editing software you can zoom in more 200%, 300% etc.. so you can make every photo look unsharp. Now if I downsampled the image by 50% then basically the web browser would allow you to look the photo only at 50% size compared to the original photo. For sure it would look sharper. My question is, what't the point? Who am I kidding? --Urmas Haljaste (talk) 20:07, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
- Support imposing impression of an imposing building --Neptuul (talk) 08:05, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Weak oppose Interesting view but, apart from the sharpness, the lighting is not really the best, and the right area is overexposed Poco2 22:33, 31 January 2014 (UTC)- Oppose As Poco--Miguel Bugallo (Lmbuga) 01:56, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
- Support — Julian H.✈ (talk/files) 09:54, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Alternative
[edit]
Comment I quess the "sharpness issue" should be solved now. While the tone of the wall is the same throughout the picture, I cannot agree that the right side is overexposed. If the sky is more bright at right it should look more bright on the picture. Of course you could argue that snow and sun are always overexposed.
- Actually, and as proof of the overexpose I added a note where you can see a red halo in the brightest area Poco2 15:48, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
- This must be a joke. Is this picture also overexposed? And of course I already know that the picture under the guidelines, an example of normally exposed image, is also overexposed. Please don't make up your own rules and standards. --Urmas Haljaste (talk) 10:31, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
- Support — Julian H.✈ (talk/files) 09:54, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
- Support Kruusamägi (talk) 10:05, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
- Support I'm an illusionist. --Urmas Haljaste (talk) 10:08, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
- Support Michael Barera (talk) 21:42, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
- Support ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 23:15, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
- Support --Kyng (talk) 06:03, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
