Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Grauman's Chinese Theatre, by Carol Highsmith fixed & straightened.jpg

Grauman's Chinese Theatre
High resolution, high detail, public domain photograph of the Chinese Theatre in Los Angeles. And for those of you who hate people/cars, I challenge you to find one in this picture. :)


 * Nominate and support. -  BRIAN  0918 00:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose. (almost neutral). Excellent quality, nice location, and of a somewhat historical content, but I do not believe it to be exceptional. In addition, the photo is only portraying the structure's façade. A hard call to make. -- AJ24 00:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Are there any problems that can be fixed? You were a little vague about what is specifically wrong with this image. &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2006-07-18 01:09
 * As for the content of the image, the facade is iconic, and is the popular depiction. Would you oppose this image of the Taj Mahal because it doesn't depict the inside? &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2006-07-18 00:52
 * "Iconic"? lets not go too far. Concerning the facade, my argument was that it is the only thing featured, whereas in the Taj Mahal picture, the surrounding landscape and scenery is depicted. However, that is neither my real argument or concern... it is just one of those images that is too plain and unextraordinary. If we admitted every image upon the basis of being iconic and of high quality, then FP would be filled with tens of thousands of images that wouldnt be exceptional. That is my real concern. But it is only my opinion, so I'll wait and see what others' concerns and comments are. Thanks. -- AJ24 03:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose. The image looks like it's a bit crooked.  Perhaps a .1 - .3 degree CCW rotation would help a bit... although that would mean cutting off even more of the edges of the image.  Weak Support for edit 2.  Otherwise I would say it was a technically beautiful but somewhat uninspiring photograph. -- Marumari 01:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. I like it.  It has "Flextight 646 & 848" color profiles embedded, rather than the more common sRGB.  Browsers that obey color profile tags will display it correctly, though most don't understand color profile tags. It's not a radical difference like Adobe RGB would be, but should probably be converted all the same.  The sky between the facade and the building on the right is blown out, but I don't think anything can really be done about that.  The tilt is very minor, and probably shouldn't be messed with.  One negative is that it's a long download for those with slow connections, at 5.8 MB.  Maybe a smaller version could be made and listed on the image page as an alternate. -- moondigger 01:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I made a medium-resolution version that comes in under 1 MB. It is converted to sRGB and has been noise-reduced.  If you want to use it for anything or link it as an alternate from the original image page, it's here: Image:Grauman's_Chinese_Theatre_Highsmith_medium.jpg. -- moondigger 01:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]] Support Edit 2 Great detail. Original colors (those displayed on my browser - ie not the embedded profile) look better IMO. --Fir0002 06:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * What browser are you using? If it understands profile tags, the image should look good either way.  If it doesn't understand profile tags, then it will look slightly different. -- moondigger 11:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Edit 2. Agree with Fir0002 completely, the image displayed with sRGB profile looks better than with the embedded profile. Not sure what is going on there, but the sky looks decidedly cyan with that profile. I've added an edit which removes the image noise and all the dust in the sky (and it took me a good 30 minutes so don't you dare not support it! ;) ). Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 11:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * If your browser doesn't understand profile tags, then of course it will look better as an sRGB image -- it's the default, lowest-common-denominator profile. It should always be used for web images (at least, as of 2006) because the majority of web browsers won't display anything else.  When an image with a different profile is displayed in a browser that doesn't understand the profile tag, the browser just puts the image up on screen without any adjustment for the profile in use, rendering the colors inaccurate.  The more a given profile's gamut differs from the sRGB gamut, the more pronounced the difference will be.  This one is subtle, as apparently the Flextight gamut is pretty close to the sRGB gamut -- but others can be much more noticeable.  For a more dramatic example, see Picture_peer_review/Okefenokee. -- moondigger 11:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I understand colour profiles... I wasn't specific when I mentioned it before, but I was saying that the image looks better in my browser than when opened in Photoshop using the correct colour profile. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 13:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * What browser do you use? In any case, "better" is subjective.  Perhaps you just don't like the original color balance, and the slight discrepancy between Flextight and sRGB (while less accurate) is more pleasing? -- moondigger 14:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm using Firefox. You're right. Thats what I, and I assume Fir0002, were suggesting - that our personal preference is for the incorrect colour profile, as the sky seems to look more natural and pleasing, whereas when viewed using the Flextight profile, it has a cyan tinge. I've opened the original using the Flextight profile, then converted it to sRGB and cropped it side-by-side with a version opened using the sRGB profile. You can see the difference quite clearly and to me, and using the colour eye dropper, it appears that, for example, the 'white' wood has significantly more green and blue in it in the Flextight profile. Same with the metal dish hanging down. I'm not saying it is therefore objectively worse than sRGB, but to my eyes, it just seems too cyan tinged. Diliff   | (Talk)   (Contribs) 09:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, when I say the Flextight profile is more accurate, I'm only saying it's more accurate to the original, since that's the profile it has embedded. It's possible that the scan had a color cast that (by coincidence) the difference between the Flextight and sRGB gamuts inadvertently corrected.  At the moment I'm viewing this page in Firefox, but in Safari (understands profile tags) both the Flextight and sRGB versions looked good. -- moondigger 14:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it's a sad, sad world where most JPEG libraries still don't understand color profiles... in 2006! I shoot all my images in RAW, so there's no color profile per se, but I still hate how my images look when I have to convert them (down) from 16-bit Adobe RGB to 8-bit sRGB.  *sobs* --Marumari 16:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * For the record though, you shouldn't REALLY notice any significant difference when converting from 16bit AdobeRGB to 8bit sRGB. AdobeRGB merely allows a wider gamut of colours to be captured. Once they make it to your display, the absolute saturation of a colour is determined more by the limits of the display than by the gamut - In other words, a red pixel at the saturation limit of the gamut will likely be at or beyond the limit of the monitor already. Also, 16bit to 8bit conversion merely makes posterization etc more likely if additional editing of levels is performed as there are less possible values per pixel - the act of conversion shouldn't actually result in a visible difference as 8bit = 16.7 million colours and beyond the limits of the human eye to differentiate. Thats why its recommended that conversion should be the final step in any post processing as it lowers the ability to perform further editing - it shouldn't result in a visible difference to the image alone. Diliff   | (Talk)   (Contribs) 18:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree with Diliff. Do you "assign" a profile or convert? If you convert to a profile you will seen no difference whatsoever --Fir0002 22:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * No, I convert, not assign. I sell my images on websites, and the thumbnails/small images that they use to demonstrate the image are based off of the original image.  Thus, I have to upload the image in sRGB 2.1 so that people viewing the image will see things correctly.  Prints from those, compared to an original 16-bit Adobe RGB print from my local printing place (using similar quality printing gear), are noticably worse. --Marumari 14:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, well thats different. If you have a medium capable of displaying a wide gamut (eg a professional printer), then images in the wider gamut will always have a more vivid look as they exploit that greater range. But from what you were saying, it sounded like you were saying that they looked visibly different on screen, which would not typically be the case. Regardless though, unless you compare using identical printing gear, you can't say for certain that the difference you see is related to the colour profiles. Too many variables. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 16:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Know exactly how you feel :-) However I think you blurred some detail unnecessarily, I'm thinking mainly of the roof palings - noise was OK in original, edit has a "plasticine" look. The gold carvings bottom center were good in the original and now look worse. Also not sure how this happened, but the palm leaves on the left hand side of the left hand gaurdian lion have become over sharpened. Still there are signficant improvements in the sky etc. It'd be good to get an edit which has the advanatage w/o the disadvantages so I'll wait for that. If you don't fell like doing it I'll try do something tommorrow --Fir0002 11:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I've uploaded a second edit, fixing (hopefully) the problem you mentioned. I've kept the dust removal and noise reduction in the sky, but softened the noise reduction over the theatre detail, so it retains some of the noise. Also, I decided to go ahead and rotate it using the base of it as the guide. I'm not sure if it is perfect but it seems better than before. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 13:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Good job, Diliff. --Fir0002 08:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Question: I've never heard of these "color profile tags". Are they inside the JPEG file? —Keenan Pepper 16:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes. Take a look at Color management.  It's embedded in TIFF, JPG, PNG, and many other formats.  If the color profile isn't there, it defaults to sRGB IEC61966-2.1 (for web images, at least.)  -- Marumari 16:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Weak Support Support edit 2. Cab02 17:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)\
 * Support. Support whichever version gains Fir and Diliff's support. ;) The location is iconic, and capturing it in daylight with no people/cars is no mean feat. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]] Support edit two - love the symmetry and the colour. --Jono 19:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Cut off at sides for starters. Personally I also find the image unappealing (and as mentioned by Moondigger, file size is unnecessarily big). --jjron 09:54, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Support edit 2, I love the super high res, you can see all the details in the doors and on the roof. Next best thing to being there. -Ravedave 00:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Support any of the above versions. It' pulls me in. Morganfitzp 01:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose--Vircabutar 06:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC) 06:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not that interesting of a picture. RyGuy17 20:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Have you looked at it at full resolution? You can see the details on the doors and all the other carvings. &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2006-07-27 21:42

Raven4x4x 09:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)