Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Wind Point Lighthouse 071104.jpg

Wind Point Lighthouse

 * Reason:Already a FP on Commons and tr.wp, and a FPC on de.wp. A very beautiful picture that also illustrates its subject well.
 * Articles this image appears in:Wind Point Light, Racine, Wisconsin
 * Creator:JeremyA


 * Support as nominator -- Diego_pmc Talk 20:22, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose Support Edit1 I like the composition and it has enc. value. But I don't think it is sharp enough.  I'm a little curious as to why -- camera settings seem ok. Fletcher (talk) 20:44, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Support There is some CA at full size and sharpness isn't perfect, but scale it down to say 1000px high and it comes out practically perfectly therefore I'd say it is technically sufficient. Noodle snacks (talk) 00:26, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Did you save your edit? Fletcher (talk) 21:20, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Nope, it was just for references sake here is a 1000px preview bearing in mind I am not sure if wiki thumbnail generation uses the best algorithm, and that a mild sharpen could be appled after scaling. Noodle snacks (talk) 22:24, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak support - I don't think the slight unsharpness is enough for an oppose. In case anyone's interested, I've been messing around with deconvolution for images recently, so I put this one through it.  The sharpness is better, but it also emphasises the JPEG artifacts and unsharp masking from the original so it's not really an improvement.  Time3000 (talk) 12:59, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment And here is a somewhat downsampled version per Noodle Snacks' suggestion. I thought it was improved even above 1000px so did not go that far.  Any better? Time3000 stated his version was not for voting so I've called this Edit1. Fletcher (talk) 18:17, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * While its letdowns are not that visible anymore, so are some some details (top of the tower for example). I honestly don't find the blur that bad, so that a downsized version would be needed. Just my two cents. Diego_pmc  Talk 21:01, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That's fair. I wanted to put it out there for others who were bothered by sharpness.  Fletcher (talk) 12:59, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Support --Avala (talk) 19:24, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Edit 2 - original has too poor sharpness IMO for a static (and therefore relatively easy to rephotograph) subject. Nice lighting and colours --Fir0002 04:38, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Edit 2 Intothewoods29 (talk) 04:14, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

MER-C 23:58, 19 November 2008 (UTC)