Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Pena Palace back.JPG
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Image:Pena Palace back.JPG, not featured
[edit]
Info created by Husond - uploaded by Husond - nominated by Lar --++Lar: t/c 03:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Support Husond has just uploaded a very remarkable series of images from this palace and the gardens, hoping to cadge some en:wp folk into doing a better article on the palace but I was taken by how beautiful this image was and the striking composition of the sky, the clock tower, and the horizon (even though the horizon is a bit tilted) Other images in his recent uploads may also be worthy candidates. ++Lar: t/c 03:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment What an amazing place, I wish I could see it myself. Unfortunately for the images, in my opinion, they're not FP quality. The camera itself doesn't do a good job (lots of noise and oversharpening), but there are also lighting and composition issues. In the current image, there needs to be denoising and a rotation counter clockwise. I would also crop the right part so that edge of the building doesn't show. But this would result in even more of the turrets being cut off. If someone could clone in the cut off pieces it might have a chance though. --Dori - Talk 06:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not a FP regular, I just look at stuff and go wow, and am not competent to counter what sounds like valid technical issues. Maybe I could nom a few for QI, what do you think Dori? Because they ARE very cool images. ++Lar: t/c 14:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, QI is a good start. I don't want to discourage you from FPC, but the standard has gone up a lot where even low end DSLRs (that's what I use) are having a tough time getting the sharpness and crispness that a lot of people expect. Point and shoot cameras will produce FP only by getting a really good composition, lighting, and maybe a magical moment for wow. If the picture is good enough for QI, in the opinion of the reviewer, they might tell you to go for FPC as well. --Dori - Talk 19:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Sent to QI... ++Lar: t/c 17:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, QI is a good start. I don't want to discourage you from FPC, but the standard has gone up a lot where even low end DSLRs (that's what I use) are having a tough time getting the sharpness and crispness that a lot of people expect. Point and shoot cameras will produce FP only by getting a really good composition, lighting, and maybe a magical moment for wow. If the picture is good enough for QI, in the opinion of the reviewer, they might tell you to go for FPC as well. --Dori - Talk 19:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not a FP regular, I just look at stuff and go wow, and am not competent to counter what sounds like valid technical issues. Maybe I could nom a few for QI, what do you think Dori? Because they ARE very cool images. ++Lar: t/c 14:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Support Good composition. --Karelj 22:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Support This is actually one of my favorites in the batch. It should be slightly rotated counterclockwise to correct tilt though. Húsönd 23:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Support Not bad. Author known how to hold camera.--Juan de Vojníkov 00:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Oppose bad crop, tilted. Lycaon 01:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)- Oppose per Lyacon. Cacophony 07:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - Idem -- Alvesgaspar 08:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose per Lyacon --AngMoKio 19:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose detail, tilted. --Beyond silence 09:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose It does have a tilt. :-\ Samsara 23:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
result: 4 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 11:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
