Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sun on the Flats (11572292064).jpg

File:Sun on the Flats (11572292064).jpg, withdrawn edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2016 at 02:04:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#United States of America
Info created by Bureau of Land Management Oregon and Washington - uploaded by Howcheng/Firebrace - nominated by Firebrace -- Firebrace (talk) 02:04, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Firebrace (talk) 02:04, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Beautiful. Hazy, but OK, so it was hazy. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:04, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Category:Crepuscular rays are nice, like sunsets and rainbows, but one really needs to combine that with spectacular landscape and quality photography. Perhaps this "flats" landscape is spectacular to the eye but the image here is rather 2D, not helped by the fairly awful technical quality. The overall scene is underexposed and I assume has been lifted slightly which has brought out a large amount of chroma noise -- it's unprintable in that state. The sunlight patch in the sky is completely blown, which is inevitable but it can be handled better than this. Canon sensors eh? The image is not sharp, and all those trees/bushes demand to be realised properly. Firebrace, your edit to this image has trashed it. Did you enhance the saturation at the same time -- this just makes the sky more cyan and emphasises the chroma noise. The original image had lots of EXIF information and was at least tagged sRGB (though without a colour profile, which is common for out-of-camera JPG). Your version has no EXIF at all and no colourspace information. On that ground alone it fails FP requirements. Please, whatever tool you are currently using to edit other people's JPGs, discard it now and use a proper photo editing application that respects EXIF and knows about colourspaces. -- Colin (talk) 08:07, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- A predictable reply from Colin. No, I haven't increased the saturation, just the contrast, and I forgot to check 'Metadata: All' when saving the image in Photoshop CS6. I see nothing in the guidelines about EXIF data. No, I won't tell you what plugins I use, but they are worth the money. Yes, the sRGB profile was retained. Yes, the image is hazy: as Ikan said, it was a hazy day. Yes, there is a bit of chroma noise on the clouds which can be seen at full resolution. Who prints photographs? I decided against sharpening because the Commons software sharpens the lower resolution copies anyway. It over-sharpens thumbnails in particular. So it would be sharpened twice. I didn't want it to look like an HDR image. But I'll try to highlight some detail. By the way, enough of the "other people's jpgs"; the whole idea of the Commons is that the jpg belongs to all of us and can be edited by anyone, just like Wikipedia... Firebrace (talk) 13:14, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please avoid personal attacks, or you may be blocked. The complete guidelines for FP require all images are tagged with a colourspace, preferably sRGB. What do you mean by "Yes, the sRGB profile was retained"? The JPG I reviewed contains no sRGB tag or profile. Increasing the contrast also increases the perceived saturation; this is well known. A CC-licensed image belongs to its creator and most certainly does not "belong to all of us". You are merely licensed to create adaptations but if your adaptation spoils the quality then Commons does not accept it as an in-place overwrite. If your adaptation significantly differs from the original then you should save it with a different name. See Commons:Overwriting existing files. You are quite wrong that the photos in Commons are ours to edit at will like some Wikipedia article. They are a distinct "work of copyright" and have an author and represent that author's creative choices, which should be respected. Anything more than trivial adjustments or uncontroversial improvements needs to saved as a different file with the changes clearly described and the additional author(s) added. The author is actually entitled (under CC licence) to disown derivative works. The images people create are theirs and always will be and we are legally required to respect that. -- Colin (talk) 14:35, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - The sRGB tag is part of the EXIF data which, as you have pointed out, is missing. It's clear I'm wasting my time here... Firebrace (talk) 14:39, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ground too clipped. Daniel Case (talk) 15:24, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Firebrace (talk) 15:34, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /— TintoMeches, 19:34, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]