Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Cu Đê River, Da Nang.jpg
File:Cu Đê River, Da Nang.jpg, featured
editVoting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Apr 2015 at 09:09:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created, uploaded, and nominated by Christopher Crouzet -- Christopher Crouzet (talk) 09:09, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
- Support -- Christopher Crouzet (talk) 09:09, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
- Neutral I like the composition, but IMO it's too noisy.--XRay talk 13:53, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Oppose A little too greyish for me. Has nice aspects though.--Tremonist (talk) 14:18, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
- Done Tremonist—the image is now slightly brighter overall. -- Christopher Crouzet (talk) 03:26, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
- Support I'm satisfied now, looks great! --Tremonist (talk) 13:33, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose Lighting is not bad but not enough going on in the composition. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:04, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose An excellent composition and lighting somehow spoiled by poor image quality. Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:01, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
- Comment Was it stitched in-camera on with PC? Are there raw source files or JPG? It is a very high-resolution image, so I'm happy to review after downsizing on my PC.
I tried reducing the image to 6MP and it is wonderfully sharp and mostly noise-free at that size, except for bottom left. I think the scene and composition are good enough it is worth trying to improve the quality.Christopher if you have raw sources, I'd be happy to see if I can improve it (I wouldn't publish them without your permission -- I'd send any results back to you). Email me if you want to try this. -- Colin (talk) 11:12, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
- Hey Colin, thanks for your offer. To be honest, I'm quite amazed by the comments saying that my panoramics have a poor quality—if instead I'd provide an image at 50% of the size, probably no one would say a such thing and the resulting image would still contain 13 Mpx, way above the requirements for FP. Sounds like an easy fix, doesn't it?
- As for the RAWs, I wouldn't mind sending them to you if I could but the stich is made of 8 images of 33.4 MB each, for a total over 250 MB, when my internet connection in Vietnam already struggled with uploading the mere 24 MB of this current image. Also, I did play around with the noise reduction/sharpening settings of Lightroom but I ended up preferring the original version and judged this noise fair enough for the resolution. Note that this has been taken at ISO 400 with a Fuji X100S, known to do pretty well with higher ISOs, but the light was low at that time and the original RAWs are quite dark, so that might explain it. Maybe I should have cranked the ISOs rather than boosting the luminosity in Lightroom?
- Anyhow, these FP critics are truly getting more and more disappointing over time—I think I'll just reupload a smaller resolution to prove my point and stick to that with the future ones. That'll make my panoramics more FP-proof and easier to upload, double win!
- Christopher Crouzet (talk) 12:03, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
- I think you have pushed the exposure/lighting which has exposed the noise too much. But I'm in no rush so I suggest we can just wait till you get better internet access and upload to DropBox or similar if you want to. I suspect even a 50% reduction wouldn't satisfy the pixel-peepers and it really does look like you've not optimised the noise reduction. Let me know if/when you are able to do this. -- Colin (talk) 23:42, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
- Bah, it just came to my mind that instead of cranking up the luminosity directly on the RAW files, I've done it after stiching............... such a clever boy. I'll upload a new version soon. -- Christopher Crouzet (talk) 01:40, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose Per above. -- Pofka (talk) 15:50, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
- Support Light and composition are very good. Sharpness is OK for an image of this size. Yann (talk) 21:51, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
- Done XRay, Alvesgaspar, Colin, and Pofka—the image should have much less noise now! -- Christopher Crouzet (talk) 03:20, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
- Support Per Yann --· Favalli ⟡ 01:06, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
- Support also per Yann. --El Grafo (talk) 11:19, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
- Support High resolution so downsample (for review) to around 24MP makes the sharpness good. Great scene. -- Colin (talk) 11:40, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
- Support --Laitche (talk) 12:03, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
- Support per Yann and Colin. --Baresi F (talk) 12:53, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
- Support -- Nikhil (talk) 03:34, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
- Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 10:43, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose Per lighting complaints; too noisy and unsharp in the land and the far side. Great idea, though. Daniel Case (talk) 03:42, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
- Daniel, could you downsize this (with a reasonable algorithm) to 14MP (around 50%) for review. I don't think your complaint about noise or sharpness holds, other than by pixel peeping, which only encourages people to upload downsized images and is harmful to this forum/project. At 100%, this image, on a 100DPI monitor, is 3 metres wide. If you are looking for noise at 30cm viewing distance on a 3m image, that's not fair. -- Colin (talk) 08:24, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
- @Colin: OK, I was unaware of that. But I still have an issue with the lighting. And it doesn't look like my !vote changed the outcome. Daniel Case (talk) 18:49, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Panoramas