Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Angels Landing and the Great White Throne.jpg/2

File:Angels Landing and the Great White Throne.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Sep 2019 at 20:47:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/United_States#Utah
Info: all by me; second nomination (First nom) - relit, denoised, improved colour. -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 20:47, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 20:47, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose. Very lovely colors and composition, but unsharp at pixel level. It appears that it has insufficient detail and was oversharpened at too high of a radius to compensate. But I think a m4/3 camera should be capable of more than that. Which lens did you use, and which aperture? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:04, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It was a stock 14-42 mm f/3.5-5.6 lens at f/8, which hasn't performed a whole lot better than this for me. --The Cosmonaut (talk) 21:22, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, kit lenses are never going to give the best sharpness, and there's a lot of sample variation so you might have an inferior copy. I used to shoot with a Nikon 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 DX, and as you can see in File:Painted Ladies San Francisco January 2013 panorama 2.jpg while center sharpness is just fine, the edges are weak even at f/8 (or f/11 full-frame equivalent). A lens that peaks at f/8 is especially bad on m4/3 because you're using the equivalent of f/16 full-frame, where diffraction is certainly visible (even if it isn't a deal-breaker as it might be at f/22 or smaller). But for some reason your lens seems to lack punch even in the center. Something like the 12-35mm f/2.8 would work wonders and allow you to shoot at a larger aperture such as f/5.6 when you don't need the DOF. Regardless, in the present case I wouldn't use such a large radius for sharpening because it just creates haloes everywhere and doesn't actually improve sharpness. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:15, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I actually upgraded to a D3300 a few years ago and I'm very happy with the kit lens (18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR II). At 55 mm, it's quite sharp, allowing to produce fairly respectable flower close-ups. --The Cosmonaut (talk) 02:56, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per above. It's a shame though, because you have a really decent composition there. But it does look insufficiently detailed and oversharpened to compensate. I don't suppose you have the RAW files so we can see if it could be processed any better? Cmao20 (talk) 23:29, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alas, no, I don't even have the original jpegs prior to stitching. Served me a good lesson for having backups though. The Cosmonaut (talk) 02:56, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Good composition, but significant detail loss.--Peulle (talk) 10:29, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per above --Booth sift 05:38, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Even if it were sharp, I would still find that shadow at lower left too much of a distraction. Daniel Case (talk) 15:01, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 00:42, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]