Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Zepper-Tony Sly (NUFAN).jpeg

File:Zepper-Tony Sly (NUFAN).jpeg, not featured

Voting period ends on 16 Jul 2009 at 11:30:05

Info created by Curnen - uploaded by Curnen - nominated by Curnen -- Curnen (talk) 11:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support A little bit noisy, but I think thats forgivable. -- Curnen (talk) 11:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support After downloading it and trying some noise reduction myself, I think it's better with a little noise - any removal needs quite strong luma noise reduction, which blurs out details in the shadows. Great shot! --Tom dl (talk) 11:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose quality (noise and sharpness).--Mbz1 (talk) 12:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\^talk 14:57, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative, not featured

I agree with Tom dl, but I doubt that with all those noise image has a chance, so I tried to denoise it a bit anyway. --Lošmi (talk) 13:42, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I think the best way to get noise out of this image is to downsize it. It is lare enough to allow a little resizing. According to the EXIF data it was shot with ISO 6400 (!!). For such a high ISO it has quite alot of detail though. Amazing what modern CMOS sensors are capable of. --Ernie (talk) 18:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support a really great shot made under difficult conditions --AngMoKio (talk) 20:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great shot and great job denoising it. The resolution is high enough that I don't see any problems with the sharpness. --Calibas (talk) 21:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent shot. -- H005 (talk) 21:53, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice job on denoising, yet lots of CA most of all at the right arm. I do not like how the face came out. I am the first one to forgive those problems for the images that have big EV. IMO (and I underline IMO) this one does not. Sorry.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment

@Lošmi: Thanks a lot for removing the noise, you did indeed a fantastic job. (I almost went nuts trying, because of the artificial fog wafting on stage adding to the usual noise)

@ Ernie: Yes, the photo was indeed shot at ISO 6400, which was the most reasonable balance between shutter speed and noise, because I needed to shoot hand-held out of a crowd of celebrating fans in front of the stage. Less than 1/160s at 400mm was at least for me impossible [Although I tried ;-)]

@Mbz1: Sorry, what does CA mean ? and EV ? By the way, I agree that the picture has some flaws in it and can live with it beeing rejected because of them. ;-)

--Curnen (talk) 14:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CA means w:Chromatic aberration, EV means enciclopedic value. --Mbz1 (talk) 14:37, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Curnen: You're welcome. I'm glad you like the result. --Lošmi (talk) 01:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too much denoised (... and the photo is just too noisy to be fully denoised). —kallerna™ 20:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Quality not enought, I'm sorry --George Chernilevsky (talk) 07:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ Looks still great as thumbnail, but in large it looses too much detail. It's a good concert pic (mood, perspective, expression, ...) , but with the fog machine running you need a lot of luck and good light conditions (or a camera in the highest price range) to get an image without noise. -- Cecil (talk) 07:03, 17 July 2009 (UTC) Vote added after end of voting period. Maedin\^talk 14:57, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\^talk 14:57, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]