Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Kalbhairav pinnacle Scj.jpg

Kalbhairav pinnacle
Voting period ends on 17 Nov 2011 at 19:32:33 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cj.samson (talk • contribs) 17:43, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Reason:Good quality, EV, res, wonderful colors and composition.
 * Articles in which this image appears:Harishchandragad
 * Creator:Cj.samson


 * Support as nominator --Muhammad (talk) 19:32, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Question -- is that the fort itself? Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:24, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, so from this being the lead image of the article, this should be the subject of the article. The article says "hill fort" and links to "Forts in India". Is this hill itself the one used as a fort, or...? This has to do with EV. Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:31, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * -/ ? Still confuzzled. This picture is not of the hill fort itself, but is the lead article? Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:02, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak support -- Okay, now I get what CJ was saying... I think something showing fortifications would have higher EV, so I still have reservations. Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:29, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * My weak support is good for the ALT too. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:56, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


 * info -it's a prominent projection of Harishchandra gad,which juts out towards the southeast .This is not a fort. --Cj.samson (talk) 06:27, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, the Harishchandra gad is a hill fort, since it’s strategically located and it’s the mightiest of hill forts. --Cj.samson (talk) 09:50, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes this is part of the hill fort, the hill consists of caves, peaks, temples, cliff (Konkan kada cliff) and this pinnacle is the projection of Harishchandra gad, since its strategically located, this was used to safeguard surrounding regions and there is no fort structure here to describe it as a hill fort, at the backdrop one can see the complete view of Malshej-Naneghat range. This is an important mainstay for many an empire, from the sixth century to the Marathas. --Cj.samson (talk) 14:32, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Support per 'Reason' mentioned by Muhammad --Cj.samson (talk) 07:26, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Support -- Glorious image. Lots of detail. JBarta (talk) 08:24, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * CommentAny chance of a version without quite so much sharpening and perhaps a tilt fix? JJ Harrison (talk) 03:47, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. At 100% resolution, it is oversharpened. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  18:11, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Edit. Better at 100% now that sharpening is reduced. Seems to still have quite a lot of noise for ISO 400 though, both luminous and chroma. I find that processing RAW images through Lightroom / Adobe Camera RAW does a good job of eliminating chroma noise, and whatever luminous noise is left over can be eliminated by programs such as Noise Ninja or Neat Image. Photoshop itself isn't bad for noise reduction (especially if you are selective, applying a stronger filter on the sky than the landscape detail) either, but there are better plug ins available. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  18:02, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Edit JJ Harrison (talk) 10:07, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Question - Can someone explain why this particular projection is more notable than all the rest in the area? I'm having a hard time seeing the EV, and the composition looks a bit snapshot-ish. Clegs (talk) 11:37, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose Both. Not seeing the EV, as it's not actually showing the fort, just some mountains near the fort. Clegs (talk) 11:40, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * This projection is part of the Hill fort which juts out and it stands facing the plains (Konkan), The geographical character and rough terrain dominated by these hill ranges prevented any real subjugation by alien powers. As I mentioned earlier it’s strategically located and it’s the mightiest of hill forts, and the composition clearly depicts the terrain - the precipitous pinnacle and the vast plains. --Cj.samson (talk) 17:23, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Early supporters: are you okay with the edit? Makeemlighter (talk) 23:21, 17 November 2011 (UTC) Suspended pending upload of denoised version. Makeemlighter (talk) 00:55, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Nice view, but noisy, with unimpressive composition. Neither the image description page or the article ascribes any particular significance to this projection, so EV isn't clear. --Avenue (talk) 08:36, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose Nice view but too noisy. This same shot with a better camera might work for FP. Pinetalk 10:47, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I Dont mind the edit. FWIW, the noise is negligible at lower res at which most images are judged. If noise is what this nomination hangs on, I can upload a denoised version --Muhammad (talk) 15:08, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, with the edit --Cj.samson (talk) 18:01, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Truth be told, I didn't realize the original had so much noise. I should have looked at it closer. While the edit reduces the noise, it now looks a little washed out, fuzzy and less vibrant. On second look, if it's allowed, I'd prefer to change my vote on both versions to Oppose. JBarta (talk) 10:21, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. EV (no fort).TCO (talk) 04:26, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * With JBarta's vote change, this entire nom should fail. Unless someone has an objection to JBarta's vote change, I will invoke IAR and mark this "Not Promoted." Pinetalk 08:07, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * "Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes" is not ambiguous. We specifically changed to a fix period a year or two ago to avoid problems where the timing of a close might impact on the success of a nomination in either direction. Anyway, the solution is easy - Muhammad can upload a denoised version. JBarta should look at the image full size in the first place. JJ Harrison (talk) 08:45, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, since you (Pine) have voted, you can't close this nomination. JJ Harrison (talk) 08:51, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * JJ Harrison: OK regarding your proposed solution. Regarding who can close, I asked an experienced closer about that and he said there is no rule against a voter closing a nom. If there is a rule that says otherwise, please point me to it. Pinetalk 09:06, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It would be unethical for a voter to close the nom. I will upload a denoised version of the original hopefully by tomorrow. Again I'd like to stress that judging an image at its max resolution and finding faults will only lead to people uploading downsampled images. --Muhammad (talk) 19:34, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * If there is a consensus to implement such a rule and it doesn't currently exist, that discussion belongs on the FP talk page. I am not opposed to implementing it, but as far as I can tell no such rule currently exists. I'll start the discussion on the talk page. Pinetalk 20:52, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Update My laptop has got a broken screen, sorry but an edit from me will take a week. --Muhammad (talk) 21:59, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * What's happening here? Almost 3 weeks already. Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:43, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * As Muhammad has been busy I guess, I've gone ahead and applied the noise reduction myself. As it's a fairly simple uncontroversial change, I went ahead and uploaded over the top of the existing edit. If people are unhappy with that, it can be reverted and uploaded as a separate edit. But given how late in the process this nom already is, I thought it might be simpler this way. FWIW, with 5.5 supports and 3 opposes, I don't think this is a pass anyhow, and it's well beyond the nomination period now. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  17:08, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... I'll have to have a look when my connection is in good enough shape to look at the full size. I think Jbarta said he would support a high quality picture. Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:47, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

--Makeemlighter (talk) 02:36, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Too stale by now. Possibly worth re-nominating. Makeemlighter (talk) 02:36, 29 December 2011 (UTC)