Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Anna Netrebko as Adina in Donizetti's L'Elisir d'Amore.jpg

Anna Netrebko
Voting period ends on 25 Nov 2012 at 18:04:18 (UTC)


 * Reason:High resolution and quality, shows the artist in her work setting.
 * Articles in which this image appears:Anna Netrebko
 * FP category for this image:Featured pictures/People/Entertainment
 * Creator:Metropolitan Opera


 * Support as nominator --Samsara (FA • FP) 18:04, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Noise almost everywhere, but otherwise quite good. Brandmeistertalk  19:00, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * See edit. Samsara (FA • FP) 20:02, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose edit It would suffice for a normal photo, but FP chicks deserve a sharp portrait. Brandmeistertalk  21:01, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Remember to give consideration to the high resolution of the image. I'm not sure what "FP chicks" are. Regards, Samsara (FA • FP) 21:56, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Featured picture girls :) While this particular image may be unique, Anna herself can be reshot, unlike some historical persons (today almost any freely licensed high-resolution image of, say, Princess Diana would pass). Brandmeistertalk  01:05, 17 November 2012 (UTC) Brandmeistertalk   00:00, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not sharp, noisy. Even when reduced to 1500x2000 with sharpening applied, the eyes just aren't in sharp focus, which is a fatal flaw in a portrait. The NR edit doesn't help and has lost fine detail. Shame as it is a good pic as a thumbnail and should probably replace the article lead IMO. Colin°Talk 12:16, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with you on the infobox image. Samsara (FA • FP) 17:21, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The NR edit [..] has lost fine detail. Every noise reduction method does that. Samsara (FA • FP) 17:21, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Not completely true, though ones options with a JPG are more limited. Selective, rather than global, noise reduction and sharpening, combined with the best tools, could retain more detail than this. However, it isn't worth the effort here IMO. Colin°Talk 18:38, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * My above statement is precisely true, in fact. Untreated noise from the sensor is fine scale and cannot, with terminal accuracy, be distinguished from fine detail. Imagine a subject with a spot on it that is exactly 1 pixel in size in your photograph, and whose colour/value difference from neighbouring pixels is within the margin of noise. What will any functional NR algorithm make of that? Exactly. QED. Samsara (FA • FP) 18:55, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * [Luke:] I can’t believe it. [Yoda:] That is why you fail. -- Colin°Talk 19:07, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * What an apt analogy, since in both cases, the laws of physics/mathematics are being violated. Samsara (FA • FP) 19:12, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Nope. I suggest you do some reading on the subject. As I said, there are many options that require intervention before a JPG is created that certainly do not lose detail (some even extract further detail than a standard shot can achieve) and other options that minimise any perception of detail lost but all is not lost even with a JPG. Not all noise is random. Not all noise is perceived or intrusive. There's some clever software out there, there are some clever techniques out there and there's a clever round lump between your ears that is unmatched by any of those. Colin°Talk 19:40, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Image noise. "Fix" it and reference it, or stop making untenable claims. Samsara (FA • FP) 10:33, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The untenable claim was that "Every noise reduction method [loses fine detail]". I said that was "not completely true, though ones options with a JPG are more limited". Not all noise reduction methods are appropriate for mention in the article Samsara linked. There's also no obligation on me to fix up Wikipedia to "win" an argument. Ok, here are some noise reduction methods that do not lose image detail (or lose apparent detail):
 * Dark-frame subtraction is already mentioned by the article you linked. Many cameras support this automatically for exposures > 1s -- too long for a portrait but not for many other images.
 * "Multiframe noise reduction" which is a Sony camera feature that's been around for several years and is present on probably all of their cameras now. It is also known as "hand-held twilight" which gives a clue that it can cope with a degree of photographer and subject movement. I've no idea if it is present on other brands or is a notable enough feature to warrant mention on WP's image noise article. One can do the same oneself by taking multiple images and aligning them and stacking them with Enfuse. This is a fairly well known technique and I've used both.
 * Related to that is using exposure fusion when compared to the alternative for a HD scene: which is to lift the shadows and recover the lightlights using a tool like Lightroom -- both of which would have increased the noise in the image.
 * There's also the various techniques manufacturers use to reduce the A->D conversion noise in their chips and to detect and remove pattern noise at source. They can also identify bright/dead pixels and mark them for elimination in the raw file.
 * There's the cleverness of the demosaicing algoirithm used by the raw processing software. Different tools vary considerably in their ability to do this well, even before one applies any NR to the image.
 * There's the photographer's technique of exposing to the right which involves over-exposing the image at shooting time and bringing the exposure back down for JPG creation. That is a noise-reduction technique that takes advantage of the linear way brightness is recorded as bits.
 * There's basic photoshop/lightroom technniques of applying a combination of masked sharpening and NR in a selective manner to an image. The hair, hat-band and skirt of the above photograph have very little apparent noise but lots of image detail -- they should be spared when applying NR. Most images have some degree of sharpening and noise reduction applied to them and there's considerable room to improve on simplistic global settings.
 * "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" -- Colin°Talk 13:18, 21 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose Horrifically fuzzy/noisey/whatever the expression is. gaz hiley  09:12, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

... Which is a great shame cause she's puuuuurrrrrrrrrrdy... Humana-humana-humana... gaz hiley 09:12, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Since when did FP turn into a teenage male wank fest? Seriously people, there are women who edit this encyclopedia and this nom has taken a creepy turn. Quit it.pschemp | talk 20:07, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that Gazhiley's comment was inappropriate but a single comment does not suggest a "wank fest"--most of the discussion above is about digital noise reduction, which only our most committed image editors wank over. Chick Bowen 22:47, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * How is me finding a woman attractive and commenting on it inappropriate, and akin to a teenage male wank fest?!! This is not the first and won't be the last time that a male editor finds a woman attractive... Jesus guys, lighten up... gaz hiley  09:08, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. I don't know if it's just me, but the way her hands are positioned, I'm expecting her to rip open her blouse. — howcheng  {chat} 17:52, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * So what? J Kadavoor J e e 04:44, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Just that that may not be the best impression to give for an operatic soprano. — howcheng  {chat} 05:54, 21 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Howcheng and others :)--Tomcat (7) 20:27, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

--Julia\talk 18:57, 25 November 2012 (UTC)