Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Cerros de Incahuasi

Cerros de Incahuasi

 * Reason: Meets all FPC criteria. It illustrates the subject in a compelling way, making the viewer want to know more.
 * Articles in which this image appears:Cerros de Incahuasi, Salar de Talar, Norte Grande, Central Andean dry puna, Geology of Chile, List of mountains in Chile
 * Creator:Luca Galuzzi


 * Support as nominator --Elekhh (talk) 10:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Goes a step toward correcting our shortage of South American FPs.  Already featured at Commons and de:wiki.  Good find.  Durova  391 16:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Had to prove to myself that it wasn't a painting.  upstate NYer  04:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Incredibly beautiful. Staxringold talkcontribs 22:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Suppport Like UpstateNYer I took a while to be convinced this wasn't a painting... Purely breathtaking image...  Gazhiley (talk) 11:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Support. Nice colours, good quality, now for the article. --jjron (talk) 13:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Support - sometimes the light is simply perfect - Peripitus (Talk) 23:00, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Support - absolutely amazing. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 02:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Great image -- Herby talk thyme 17:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Support per above. --KFP (talk | contribs) 20:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Excellent light. -- IP69.226.103.13 |  Talk about me.  05:43, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Support This is absolutely breathtaking. I had to come see it again - that's how I know it should be featured! mheart  ( talk ) 20:54, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment The painting-like quality seems to be coming from some very aggressive noise reduction. Compare the original with the current version. I actually think the original is probably better - there is a lot of lost detail. Noodle snacks (talk) 06:47, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: Based on Noodle's above comments, I gave the original a very slight de-noise (detail was quickly lost in the mountains, so the sky is still a little noisy) and also kept the original colours; the edit that was voted on was over-saturated (I think, or it may have been a colour profile issue). See edit and "original" aggressively denoised and over-saturated edit.  It may be taking too much liberty, but I uploaded over the top.  As I see it, this was only a correction of a previous mistake, not really an alternative, and those who object can oppose the image and upload the painting-like one as an edit.  Or, of course, you can revert my edit, I don't mind.  I'm just extremely reluctant to see the spoiled version become featured due to people not coming back to the nomination and updating their votes (which is common).  The other reason I decided to upload over the top is that both the Commons and the de.wiki nominations were for the noisy original: the aggressive de-noise and alteration of colours only happened months afterwards.   Mae din \talk 10:39, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You could try doing a masked noise reduction, so that the sky is NRed heavily whilst nothing is done to the mountains. Noodle snacks (talk) 10:49, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, that's beyond my current skill level, :)  Mae din \talk 10:52, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * What bit of software are you using? Noodle snacks (talk) 10:56, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Photoshop CS4 with the Noiseware Professional plug-in. I've got the software to do it, I'm just not sure how to, and would question my results.   Mae din \talk 11:01, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Think I may have it. Perhaps you can comment on the upload in a moment.   Mae din \talk 11:14, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Is it okay? I didn't do NR anywhere but sky.   Mae din \talk 11:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I probably won't keep reviewing all the edits, but did notice when I voted that the mountains were soft on detail as mentioned here. So if someone improves on that situation while keeping the essence of what I voted on, consider this my support of said version. --jjron (talk) 13:42, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it looks fine, the landscape has texture, and the sky is noiseless now. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  18:35, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Noodle snacks (talk) 22:34, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Support - Per nominator. An extraordinary picture. - ☩  Damërung   ☩   .  -- 04:49, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

--Makeemlighter (talk) 09:49, 14 January 2010 (UTC)