Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Chambord pano.jpg

Chambord [edit]

I took this panoramic photo (4 photos stitched together), and Yummifruitbat touched it up on Picture peer review. A very similar version is used at Château de Chambord.

Strengths of this photo:

Detail is good (but not fantastic)
Subject is interesting
No clones :)
Dead straight (thanks Yummifruitbat)

Weaknesses:

Lighting pretty dull - was pretty much midday :(
Little people in centre of photo are possibly distracting.
There are already heaps of photos of Chambord at Commons. Not sure if that's a problem.

All your comments are very welcome. I suspect this photo isn't quite up to standard, but I look forward to learning how to make the next one better.

Nominate and support. - Stevage 22:27, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support: - Excellent illustration of the Château, and for the record, much better than any of the others at Commons [1] IMHO. Yummifruitbat 22:52, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yummifruitbat's downsampled version, neutral on the other modifications. The quality at maximum resolution still leaves room for improvement, but otherwise I think it's a great shot. bcasterline t 23:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - When I did the editing, I considered downsampling so that the image was still 100% crisp at maximum resolution, but decided against it because it would mean losing detail (which would be needed if the photo was to be reproduced in print). Bear in mind the dimensions of this photo (6054x2155px) make it at least twice as large as it needs to be to meet FP standards. -Yummifruitbat 03:27, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Generally if it isn't sharp, you can safely downsample a bit without losing any detail, because softness usually means that there are (simply speaking) 2 pixels used to describe an object that could just as easily be described by 1. While it is certainly possible to lose detail if you downsample at an inappropriate ratio and don't check the image, I'm pretty sure there is room to do it in this image. Try downsampling to 4000 pixels wide and see if you can see any meaningful loss of detail. I tried and couldn't see any. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 08:27, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I like the picture, but I'm going to hold off because the image isn't in any articles yet. The key factor that distinguished between a pretty image and a featured picture is whether it's illustrative, and while I'm sure this picture could be, I can't vote in good faith for an image that no one's seen fit to include in an article yet. Night Gyr 07:27, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- A very similar version was used in Château de Chambord. I've now updated that article so the FPC is used (towards the bottom of the page). Stevage 07:51, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: OK, I've downsampled to 75% of the original size, and you're right, Diliff, there doesn't seem to be any noticeable loss of detail. --Yummifruitbat 16:10, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice :) Anonymous _anonymous Have a Nice Day 17:38, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support Cropped, edited version. I would however like to see this picture redone. This shot is OK, but the lighting is terrible - and such a lovely subject I think can be done better. I like the colors and composition of Image:France Loir-et-Cher Chambord Chateau 03.jpg better, but the quality is pretty poor. My ideal would be something like this. I've uploaded three edits for consideration.
- The next time I'm in the area, I'll have another crack! (not likely to happen anytime soon) I regret not trying again later in the afternoon when there was really some nice afternoon sun. I agree with everything you say basically. Stevage 14:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly oppose retouched versions. Why the hell would anyone clone out the people? They do not obstruct the building but rather give the image a sense of scale. Again another totally unnecessary photo manipulation. --Dschwen 12:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Just on personal taste, I found a couple of the people distracting (right in centre, two people taking a photo, another woman walking towards camera). I suppose I like people sitting down, or wandering around, but when they're being unaesthetic, like taking photos, I'm not sad to see them go. That said, I have no strong preference either way, I can see the arguments for or against cloning them out. Stevage 14:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support for the original(not the edited version) I agree with Dschwen, the people give a sense of scale and don't distract from the subject in any way. Besides that, a very good image! --Pharaoh Hound 12:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the retouching is unnecessary.. I don't think I can offer my support due to the bland lighting as it just doesn't do it for me. If anything, as far as a crop goes, I would prefer a little taken away from the foreground lawn and a little from the left and right edge of the frame, but keeping the proportions the same. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 13:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another edit - Not a big fan of Fir0002's edits I'm afraid, the sky looks artificial and I agree with Dschwen about unnecessarily removing the people when they're not obstructing the subject. If the activities of the people in the shot are 'unaesthetic' then presumably we should say the same about the photographer on the bridge in Carcassonne? I think Diliff's suggestion about the crop has merit and have tried a version with the same proportions. --Yummifruitbat 19:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I guess it's a matter of personal taste, but to my mind a sky without completely burnt out details is less realistic to one which has them partially recovered. Also I find that the original has a blue caste which has also been correct in my edit. But obviously the edits were just there to give people choice, and you are free to make yours (choice that is) --Fir0002 www 11:12, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support Yummifruitbat's cropped version. howch e ng {chat} 16:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment since people are enjoying photoshopping it, just pointing out the original untouched image is available here. Fwiw, I think I do prefer the version with the people cloned out, and will probably print it for my wall. :) Stevage 20:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yummifruitbat's cropped version. --Dschwen 20:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I kind of like the people in the shot.. but the one without it is fine too. That is an absolutely gorgeous structure. drumguy 8800 - speak 03:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Any, I'm impartial when it comes to cloning. Just look at the arcitecture on the roof though! --Lewk_of_S e rthic _contrib ^talk 21:00, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly oppose any version with the people cloned out. Support original. Mooveeguy 17:06, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly oppose any version with people. TestPilot 07:54, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yummifruitbat's cropped version. I like it the best. TomStar81 01:14, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:PanoChambord2 yfb edit3 downsampled.jpg ~ Veledan • Talk 08:59, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This image has now been re-uploaded entitled Chambord_pano.jpg for snappiness :) --Yummifruitbat 09:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]