Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Baikal ice on sunset.jpg

File:Baikal ice on sunset.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jun 2019 at 16:32:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Russia#Siberian_Federal_District
Info Lake Baikal in winter. Created, uploaded and nominated by Sergey Pesterev -- Sergey Pesterev (talk) 16:32, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Sergey Pesterev (talk) 16:32, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Piotr Bart (talk) 16:37, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Please don't pixel-peep this to death. At that latitude in January you need high ISO at sunset since the ice is probably moving a bit with the waves. The big size of the file makes up for it. I wouldn't mind an English description though. --Cart (talk) 16:56, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks Cart for the explanation on the circumstances. Often reviewers don't know why or even if certain settings were chosen. – Lucas ^T 18:18, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rather noisy, but very spectacular --Michielverbeek (talk) 20:07, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support I agree that this is a very spectacular photo and overall worth a feature, but it is (understandably, as Cart explains) quite noisy, and even downsized to 5000px across some noise is still visible. It's not terrible though, so I still support. Cmao20 (talk) 20:20, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Noisy but still good enough for FP --Booth sift 23:28, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:07, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It's spectacular, but I don't understand why we are not asking for it to be de-noised before we support a feature. It's already problematic at 250% and slightly at 200% of my 13-inch laptop screen. And in this case, I don't think the size of the photo is an argument for a feature, because it looks bad at full size and we probably shouldn't be looking at it at that size. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:09, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ikan, FYI, zoom levels above 100 % usually denote zooming in further than the 1:1 pixel level, so picture pixels would actually get upscaled on your monitor. I'm sure you meant the opposite, being zoomed in a moderate amount, still above pixel level, approx. 50 % zoom or less. – Lucas ^T 07:33, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lucas, you didn't read my remark carefully. I'm talking about percentages of the size of my 13-inch laptop screen, not percentages of the huge size of the image. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:40, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ikan, when you get noise at high ISO levels, de-noising will often ruin the photo. The de-noising programs can only merge and extrapolate the "missing" information so far. The result is often a smooth and plastic-looking photo since you lose all sharp edges and in most places the "noise grains" will bunch together and form artifacts instead. A photo like this will lose some of its crispness. Even a slight noise reduction would make it look over-processed or like taken with a cheap mobile. --Cart (talk) 08:43, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's a pity. Do you think there could have been a way to get a little more sharpness and less noise when the photo was taken? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:47, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You could probably have taken it with that time and a lower ISO and added the light in post-processing; that would have made it less noisy but instead you would have lost bright colors and details in the ice. Or you could have sacrificed the DOF and made only the nearest ice sharp; that way you could do a less noisy photo. In some cases, everything is a compromise. --Cart (talk) 09:21, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Thanks for explaining. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:46, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ikan and others, this is a version of the photo downsized to "normal"/acceptable size with a bit of noise reduction (you can do NR on a high ISO photo if you downsize it first). It is nicer to look at when opening at full size, BUT in the process a lot of information is now lost. It has gone from 19.05 MB to 4.08 MB. Isn't it better to have the full original version? --Cart (talk) 12:08, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The original is much nicer to look at, the world has plenty of mushy noise-reduced images already. – Lucas 12:38, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I just wanted to show how it would look since not all voters are used to how post-processing works. --Cart (talk) 12:50, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the demonstration. I agree that the original is superior to the edited version. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:14, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Aasish Shah (talk) 07:08, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:51, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 14:14, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It needs denoising. At least selective denoising. Great lighting and compo but the noise is just too much. Poc o² 14:29, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp here 17:40, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Fluffy89502 ~ talk^ 05:46, 16 June 2019 (UTC) Thanks providing me with my new desktop background![reply]
Neutral Nice photo but somewhat overcooked. (1) Noise is not the issue here. Noise is the most overrated problem here on FPC ever. That said, I think at 38mm focal length an aperture of f/5.6 would have done it, too. Then it would have been possible to lower the ISO to 200 which would have reduced the noise significantly. However, it is always easy to critize such a photo sitting at home in front of your computer. On location you sometimes don't have the time to try different settings or you don't immediately see a flaw that can be seen on a computer screen. Additionally EXIF says that the exposure has been increased somewhat (+0.57) in postprocessing which may explain the amount of noise since the D800 IMO would normally not create so much noise at only ISO 800. (2) EXIF also says that the author increased clarity, vibrance and saturation which was for my taste somewhat too much, that's why I vote neutral here. --Code (talk) 07:04, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Poco --Milseburg (talk) 09:10, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 13:30, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 21:59, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too noisy. --Rbrechko (talk) 23:41, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Eatcha (talk) 03:28, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- -donald- (talk) 07:43, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose could be mitigated by denoising --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:23, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 11:40, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, Too much noise for me.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:59, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, largely per Code; image quality issues unfortunately go beyond what should have been easily tamed ISO noise. It seems that a combination of heavy-handed sharpening and NR have created an unpleasant and artificial-looking grain. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:07, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful oppose due to the noise. Daniel Case (talk) 14:22, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Sorry. A great composition, but too much noise. --XRay ^talk 11:03, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 7 oppose, 2 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:44, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural/Russia#Siberian_Federal_District