Wikipedia:Picture peer review/Upernavik
The photos illustrates very well the appearance of a minor, remote Greenlandic town at summer time. The first one is technically OK, I think. The second image is taken in midnight sun and shows a larger portion of the town, thus the EV is better, but it has an unrecoverable technical error, one of the images used in the stitch had a soft focus and this is visible on close inspection of the second pano in full size.
Would any of the images have a chance at FPC?
Some background information on the history of the two photos.
- Nominated by
- Slaunger (talk) 21:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
- Comments
- I like both of these in different ways, but my feeling is neither would have particularly high chances at FPC. Admittedly I have only viewed at image page size (due to large filesizes) but will give my impressions from there since no one else has commented.
I prefer the composition on the first, mainly because the second one seems to end too abruptly with those tanks and seemingly a small bit of the coast cutoff at the right - not a real big issue re EV, but it just looks too tight visually; it also affects the look of background, with that hill that looks far better in the first version where it runs down to the sea. On the flipside, the lighting is bit more appealing in the second version (the first is a little dull) and as you say it shows more of the town; on the other hand I think we see enough of the town in the first to get a feel for it and the construction of the houses, etc, which is surely the main point, i.e., the second one is just sort of more of the same.
I will take your point about the soft focus image in the second one as read and say that would definitely affect its chances at FPC. I note that the first one, a Commons FP, also raised grumbles over there about sharpness, and I feel that people here tend to be harsher on things like that.
So my overall feeling would be that if you were to nominate either, I'd go for the first one, but I wouldn't say it had really good chances. I wonder if anything could be done just to pick up the brightness a bit, particularly in that really shadowy area towards the tanks? (I'd have a try myself but don't have the full res, and you'd probably do a better job of it yourself). If you could just pick that up a bit, or do something to get a bit more width on the second one (and fix the soft focus), then it may be worth trying at FPC as long as you're prepared for some negative opinions. --jjron (talk) 05:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)- Hi jjron, thank you for taking your time to quite thoroughly consider my two photos (except looking at them in full res, he, he). I can basically agree in what you say. Concerning the second image I have used very many hours trying to it better, especially the area with the soft focus, and this is truly unrecoverable. Based on your reasoning I agree that image one is the best candidate.
- Considering the light I also agree with you that its darker patches are one of its less optimal sides. I remember that I have already tried to improve that in post-processing, but that is quite some months ago and I think I have improved a little in my post-processing skills, so I think I will give that another go. One last thing, which I would like to get some advise on (and where I really goofed up on my cliff/gull/lichen FPC): Is the current cation optimal, or can you suggest any improvements?
- Again, thank you for taking your time to consider this. -- Slaunger (talk) 07:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- I tried to build number one again with the newest bells and whistles (newer version of hugin) and I also tried to bring out some more details in the shadows. However, what I came up with is very, very similar to the image I have uploaded, so there is apparently not much to gain there. If i tweak the color curve more to bring more light in it it will begin to look unrealistic. So, I think i will have a go with this one. -- Slaunger (talk) 08:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- I see you've already nominated at FPC, but will reply anyway. Re the caption, to be honest captions don't usually swing many votes at FPC (I think the problem with your caption on the previous nom was that it seemed to be trying to justify the image's EV but wasn't convincing; if the image has sufficient EV it will usually be apparent and the caption won't need to plead its case). Really the stuff about the stitching shouldn't be there though (if anywhere, it can go in the 'reason'). If anything, looking at your FPC nom, some of the caption should be in the reason, and some of the reason should be in the caption. In my opinion all it needs is the first sentence as is, then perhaps a second sentence adding a little interesting detail (e.g., something about this time of year vs other times of year, why the houses are built the way they are, etc - you know, just some interesting fact about the place that the picture is illustrating). People generally don't want to be reading enormous captions, but a well worded, to-the-point, one or two sentence caption can help draw them in.
I'm sure there must be more detail in the shadows than we're getting, though understand your concerns about making it look unrealistic. Have you tried to select the shadowy regions and selectively lighten them, or even just dodge out those areas of the photo? There's people better at this stuff than me, but I'll download the full version and give it a try. If it comes up any good I'll upload for you. --jjron (talk) 10:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the advice concerning the caption. Is it Ok to change it now, that I have nominated it. I have not tried selective lifting the shadowy parts, and I am reluctant to do so as I think it will not be true to how it really looks.
- BTW, do you realise that you nominated version 1 at FPC, but it's version 2 that's in the article? --jjron (talk) 10:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Darn, no I did not until now. Actually i am the person who inserted version two in the article, but that is quite a while ago. At that time I reckoned it was the version with the highest EV as it showed a larger part of the town. However based on your review above I regret that I did not insert version 1 at that time. Hmmm.. I will post a note about this on the FPC. -- Slaunger (talk) 11:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Nah, don't post it on FPC, just swap 'em over in the article. No harm, no foul. All it indicates is that anyone that's reviewed hasn't even bothered to check for EV :-).
OK, quick edit. I brought up the shadows, but that brought out a bit of noise. I didn't want to try a noise reduction as I think it would have wiped out detail in this shot. I also noted the lack of sharpness mentioned at Commons. So did a downsize, still 1000px on the 'short' side so well above requirements (though I'm some size-nazis at FPC would whine about it). This has helped to take out some excess noise and pick up the apparent sharpness. I somewhat prefer it, but will leave it up to you to offer it as an edit at FPC. --jjron (talk) 11:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC) - Oh, re the caption. Yep, just update it if you want to, that's fine (again if someone had commented on that, you might comment on it in the nom, but since they haven't just leave a comment in the edit summary). --jjron (talk) 11:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Hey, I am impressed by the edit. It has turned out better than I would have imaged. Concerning further downsampling, i have mixed feelings about that. the pixel-by-pixel quality gets better, but if you do a printout at the same final scale you will not gain anything from downsampling. But I will certainly add it as edit to consider. Thank you for taking your time to do this. -- Slaunger (talk) 11:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- My thoughts on size - don't give away more than necessary. We should be worried about how it looks on screen, and possibly for a smallish print. In reality that's how most (>>99%) WP photos are used, and frankly that's also how images are judged at FPC. If someone really wants/needs a bigger version for big printing they can contact you and arrange something. (As I said originally I didn't download the full versions due to filesizes - slow internet connection at home, fast but metered to the user at work; I actually hate these really big filesized images for those reasons). --jjron (talk) 11:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Hey, I am impressed by the edit. It has turned out better than I would have imaged. Concerning further downsampling, i have mixed feelings about that. the pixel-by-pixel quality gets better, but if you do a printout at the same final scale you will not gain anything from downsampling. But I will certainly add it as edit to consider. Thank you for taking your time to do this. -- Slaunger (talk) 11:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Nah, don't post it on FPC, just swap 'em over in the article. No harm, no foul. All it indicates is that anyone that's reviewed hasn't even bothered to check for EV :-).
- I see you've already nominated at FPC, but will reply anyway. Re the caption, to be honest captions don't usually swing many votes at FPC (I think the problem with your caption on the previous nom was that it seemed to be trying to justify the image's EV but wasn't convincing; if the image has sufficient EV it will usually be apparent and the caption won't need to plead its case). Really the stuff about the stitching shouldn't be there though (if anywhere, it can go in the 'reason'). If anything, looking at your FPC nom, some of the caption should be in the reason, and some of the reason should be in the caption. In my opinion all it needs is the first sentence as is, then perhaps a second sentence adding a little interesting detail (e.g., something about this time of year vs other times of year, why the houses are built the way they are, etc - you know, just some interesting fact about the place that the picture is illustrating). People generally don't want to be reading enormous captions, but a well worded, to-the-point, one or two sentence caption can help draw them in.
- Seconder
- Nominated at FPC by Slaunger. --jjron (talk) 08:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)