Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Dunrobin Castle, Sutherland, Scotland

Dunrobin Castle, Sutherland, Scotland

 * Reason:good picture
 * Articles this image appears in:Dunrobin Castle
 * Creator:Jack Spellingbacon


 * Support as nominator --Snowman (talk) 14:42, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Support --GerardM (talk) 16:33, 27 November 2009 (UTC) WOW where is Cynderella, the prince ?
 * Comment. The image in the article is File:Dunrobin Castle -Sutherland -Scotland-26May2006.jpg, the one presented here is Dunrobin Castle -Sutherland -Scotland-26May2008.jpg. Caption should make reference to the garden as well, which is in the foreground and occupies half the image. Elekhh (talk) 20:12, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * OK. Caption amended. Image shown in en wiki article infobox has been replaced with good name file. Snowman (talk) 23:36, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose: Chromatic aberration and soft.   Mae din \talk 21:38, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I do not understand the what "soft" refers too. Please provide a little more explanation. Snowman (talk) 20:14, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I was referring to the sharpness of the image. I don't think it is sharp enough; I do realise that this can have the appearance of being improved by downsampling, but even at the minimum (by FP standards) size, the foreground is still fuzzy.  Just my opinion, and clearly in the minority, ;-).  I also agree that there is oversaturation.   Mae din \talk 08:23, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that the chromatic aberration is slight considering the high resolution of this 3,872 × 2,592 px image, which even shows brickwork details. Snowman (talk) 22:37, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see much connection between CA and resolution. Apart from the (okay, minor) CA on the building, there is rather a lot of purple fringing on the leaves of the tree at the left.  I know we're our own worst critics, but I get this sort of CA (and softness) on my images because I have two terrible, cheap lenses, and I would consider my photographs unsuitable for FP, on account of these faults alone.   Mae din \talk 08:23, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean about the leaves and perhaps some other features in the periphery of the image. I meant when everything is downsized then the smaller features, including the chromatic aberration, are less easy to see. Are these problems bad enough to bring down a well framed detailed image of the castle? I might crop off a bit from the left side on the next revision, but I will see what it looks like first. Snowman (talk) 14:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The revised version (Alt 1) has been cropped and the trees on the extreme left and a portion of lawn at the extreme bottom have been left out. Snowman (talk) 10:24, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. I would clone out the blurry birds. Kaldari (talk) 05:22, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That is easy to do, but I opted to leave them in. Snowman (talk) 12:14, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I would prefer the birds cloned out as well. Even as a thumbnail they are visible and distracting.  Jujutacular  T · C 16:28, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Three birds flying in the sky now removed. Snowman (talk) 20:01, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Support-- Silversmith Hewwo 02:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I'd err on the side of saying it is acceptably sharp however I do wonder if the saturation has been artificially boosted quite a bit. Noodle snacks (talk) 06:25, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The contrast is similar to the other photographs of the castle in the author's flickr photo series. Snowman (talk) 11:48, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm suggesting the author might have had a fiddle with all of them. Compare the saturation of green vs this image for example: http://1photoblog.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/dunrobin-castle-highland-scotland.jpg. It can be fixed in an edit, we just don't want unrealistic colours. Noodle snacks (talk) 01:32, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, we do not want unrealistic colours. The linked image has convinced me that this image needs the contrast fixing. Snowman (talk) 10:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You mean saturation, I assume, not contrast... The contrast isn't really in question. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  12:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * What is saturation anyway? I still do not know what EV is. Is there a list defining the jargon used here somewhere? Anyway, it looks better with the saturation reduced by 25% using the saturation feature in GIMP. To me it seems that this modification makes the slight chromatic aberration less noticeable too. What happens to this nomination now? Do I scrap this nomination? Is it acceptable to upload the saturation reduced image over the previous image like I did after the minor edit of removing the birds from the sky (I thought the birds were interesting and not a distraction, but I am not questioning how it appeared to others). Should I then link the original image (above) from the archives? I might crop off a bit from the bottom on the next revision as well, but I will see what it looks like first, and, if cropped, upload to a new name file. It may need more sky at the top too, and I might paint that in, if I think it will looks better in the next revision. Snowman (talk) 14:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * For a short while we linked to a list of terms used here at FPC, but it was removed in August. Not really sure why, as it seems uncontroversial!  Anyway, there is this list of terminology (which I note doesn't include saturation, :-/) and there's this list of abbreviations.  Hope those two links are helpful.  I was perplexed by EV (encyclopaedic value) for a while, too, but it's basically referring to the value added to an article by an image . . . how encyclopaedic is it?  How well does it illustrate the subject matter?  There are more facets, of course, but that's the biggest application, I suppose.  The colorfulness article is what you want to read, to get an idea about saturation.  As for the edit, you should upload it as a derivative work, and not over the top of the original.  For small edits like the removal of the birds, that's okay, but generally it's preferred to offer an alternative version for consideration.  You can just thumbnail the new edit, like it's been done in this nomination.  Hope that helps!   Mae din \talk 14:34, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. That is helpful. Excuse my ignorance; I plan to look at the lists of definitions that you linked. Snowman (talk) 14:41, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It's okay, it's normal, :-) And you're welcome, anytime.   Mae din \talk 14:45, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Alt 1 version shown. Snowman (talk) 16:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 *  Weak Support Alt 1 Thanks for the changes in the caption. I also like the reduced saturation and the crop on the bottom and left, which provide a much better framing. I am not sure about the extended sky - I liked how the castle dominated the landscape in the original. Digital manipulation should be minimised per FPC (Featured Picture Criteria). PS. I suggest the links to the abreviations and jargon to be reintroduced to this page, as the hermetic language in use deters new participants. Elekhh (talk) 20:20, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The level of sky was a bit arbitrary. I have looked at it a bit more critically and cropped a bit of sky from the top. Snowman (talk) 00:04, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Support ALT1 Issues resolved.  Jujutacular  T · C 06:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose Subject has great potential but is shot with harsh, uneven lighting with some clipped highlights on the left, and a general softness in the foreground. Speaking of the foreground, there seems to be either too much or too little of it; if the garden is to be included, I'd like to see more of it from a better vantage point; or in the alternate maybe it would be better to cut out the garden altogether and focus entirely on the castle. Fletcher (talk) 04:01, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Alt 1. -- JN 466  13:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

--Caspian blue 03:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)