Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Doom Bar from Hawker's Cove edit1.jpg

Doom Bar from Hawker's Cove
Voting period ends on 25 Sep 2011 at 11:49:03 (UTC)
 * Reason:Doom Bar from Hawker's Cove.jpg A high quality image which shows waves breaking over the Doom Bar at the mouth of the River Camel in Cornwall. The Doom Bar is a sandbank, the shape of which can be seen under the water, on the near of the picture (the far side is Daymer Bay). It has been cropped slightly to increase encyclopedic value. This my first ever featured pic nomination, so sorry if I've got anything wrong!
 * Articles in which this image appears:Doom Bar
 * FP category for this image:Featured pictures/Places/Landscapes
 * Creator:Worm That Turned


 * Support as nominator -- WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 11:49, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose I'm afraid. It doesn't have that zing of sharpness that makes a great landscape. If you have a look at some of the FPs of landscapes (e.g., , ) they are super crisp and make you go wow. I'm not sure what's happened on this one, whether it's just the equipment or JPG compression or whatnot but at full resolution it is very blurry and unclear. I'm not a fan of the colour change from the original either - you can tell it's been tweaked. Polequant (talk) 13:31, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak support: Not as stunning as some of the other FPs, but sufficient EV for the article itself. I would prefer something taken from a higher angle, to better show the bar. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:59, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose -- Terrible image quality. Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:16, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose Image quality isn't there. You could try stitching a panorama to improve it with your camera. JJ Harrison (talk) 08:24, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the advice. I've got the image on the camera still, and the quality appears much better on the screen, so I'm wondering if there was some problem with compression during the import. I'll have a look and see if there's anything I can do to improve it.  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 12:43, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It's definitely overcompressed (it wouldn't have come off your camera at 1,000KB unless something very strange is going on), but I doubt that would explain such low quality. What's the camera? --jjron (talk) 15:14, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The 1000KB one was after Crisco gave me a hand with cropping - it came off at about 4Mb originally - as can be seen in the uncropped version. The camera is a Panasonic Lumix DMC-TZ10, and I've just been taking the image directly off using a Mac using iPhoto. I'm wondering if I use the "official software" written for windows it might work better - can then do the cropping (as the field at the bottom doesn't add much EV)  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 16:55, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * He's right; my connection has this weird habit of downloading size reduced files (when I downloaded the original, it came in at less than a megabyte) Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:11, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Now that's weird. Is that a work or school or uni connection or something? Worm, the method of getting it off your camera shouldn't really matter. I don't imagine iPhoto automatically does anything odd to them (never used it), but personally I usually just browse the camera directly and download as straight files, then edit them in an image app of my choice. To be honest I'd say the camera's probably not really up to this (the IQ of the original image isn't much better than the edited version), but you may like to check your camera settings to try to maximise quality. JJ's suggestion of stitching a pano may help, but with this quality I can't see it getting it to FP quality. Keep experimenting though. --jjron (talk) 11:16, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a really s****y SIM card-based modem; my current apartment doesn't have wi-fi or a landline. Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:30, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks jjron. I thought that might be the case, but thought it was worth experiencing the process anyway!  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 11:44, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

--Makeemlighter (talk) 16:54, 25 September 2011 (UTC)