Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Library of Celsus

Library of Celsus
Voting period ends on 25 May 2012 at 10:08:30 (UTC)
 * Reason:Very good representation of the library, with good level of detail. The few tourists in the image provide a scale of reference, while not obscuring the subject excessively.
 * Articles in which this image appears:Library of Celsus
 * FP category for this image:Architecture
 * Creator:Benh LIEU SONG


 * Support as nominator -- ELEKHHT 10:08, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support I saw this image before, beautiful and adequate quality imo. Brand meister talk   10:15, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak Support I think it could be improved with a NR in the sky. JJ Harrison (talk) 07:48, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Great image. High EV. Fantastic detail. Colin°Talk 19:30, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak support- Good EV, moderate detail.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 03:05, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 *  Weak support Can only support. But I think like JJ that NR would improve it a lot (I'm ready to give a 16bit tiff to someone skilled enough for selective NR. Can't do that in Gimp which I don't use anymore, and don't know how to do that in Lightroom). Also not too keen on the noon lighting, but had no choice. If someone comes with a better one... Finally, I may have a look at the WB (compare with ) before the nom period is over. Don't u agree? - Blieusong (talk) 16:35, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Lightroom is pretty good at keeping detail with NR but noise can be re-introduced by applying sharpening. So if you have any sharpening on, make sure you turn up the Masking slider, which restricts the sharpening to just the edges of objects. Hold down ALT as you slide and you'll see the mask. If it masks out the sky then you know that you aren't sharpening it. Similarly, when saving the jpg, avoid the sharpening options there as they can produce noise in your sky. Finally, make sure you use a decent quality level on the jpg (like 90) as lower levels can cause noise due to jpg artefacts.
 * Personally, I don't think the noise levels are bad (they could be improved) and considering this is a 36MP image, using noise as a reason not to give full support is just insulting and shameful. WP's FP standards only require a measly 1000px on the shortest edge, and nobody would be complaining about noise if this image was downsampled. Colin°Talk 18:33, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You're right. I'm fine with noise which isn't so intrusive (had a look again and it wasn't as bad as in my souvenirs). But I now remember this was processed with Canon's DPP. Will reprocess with Lr4 and fix the WB in the process (it's not so pink-yellowish in reality, and this lowers EV imo). - Blieusong (talk) 20:42, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * And thanks for the tips by the way - Blieusong (talk) 20:47, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * LR4 can do selective NR. The brush tool has a NR slider. So you can paint the sky and selectively NR that portion only. But I suspect the other tips will achieve what you want as LR is pretty clever. Colin°Talk 21:01, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The "alt" key tips is great... Thanks a lot (I'm new to LR, this helps me for saving pictures taken at higher ISO). - Blieusong (talk) 17:53, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd like to add that I tend to do selective noise reduction in Photoshop rather than Lightroom, because it allows me to control the selection better than 'painting' the NR into the image. With Photoshop, you can select the entire sky area much quicker using the 'magic wand' tool, then feather the selection with an appropriate width. I tend to use Lightroom mainly for the kind of processing that will affect the histogram because once you've converted to JPEG, you run the risk of posterisation and blown highlights, but this isn't an issue with noise reduction so much. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  14:55, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Can't afford photoshop :( and I avoid using Gimp since it doesn't handle 16bit / channel, and this breaks my workflow. Maybe I could add a last step to my workflow and selectively NR the sky in Gimp after a conversion to 8bit tiff before uploading to Wiki. - Blieusong (talk) 16:30, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Diliff, I hope you're not editing JPGs in Photoshop -- surely they should be at the very end of the chain. Blieusong, if you have children at school or college (even primary/infants school) then you can get Photoshop for £190 and the whole Design Standard suite for £235. Lightroom is cheaper too -- you are effectively paying the upgrade price. Colin°Talk 17:27, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Editing JPGs in Photoshop isn't a big deal if it's detail-related (such as cloning, NR etc). If it's making wholesale histogram-changing levels adjustments, then yes I agree, stick to lossless 16bit files. Converting to JPG should be the last step as a rule of thumb, I agree, but if you know how the editing will affect the end product then you can tread lightly without causing problems. :-) &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  17:59, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Support Tomer T (talk) 17:20, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support agree with other comments about noise but I think the pros greatly outweigh the cons for this image. Pine(talk) 09:23, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm ready to upload a new version of it, but wonder if this isn't against the rules over here (I'm not frequent reviewer here, and since a few people have already voted). It has cooler WB and slightly less noise. I didn't want to NR too much to preserve the many details of the façade. As a bonus, it's also bigger (63 megapixels, decide to provide full size version). So if no one is against by tomorrow, I will go ahead. Thanks!- Blieusong (talk) 17:53, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You can add it as an alternate image in this nomination, although I'm not sure that people will have enough time to consider which version they prefer, so there may be discussion after the close about which version is better. Pine(talk) 07:15, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Found issue with my last pic. Will try to fix tomorrow (was too busy today) - Blieusong (talk) 21:33, 20 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Decided to overwrite current version, since it's already used in a few articles elsewhere, and the changes are likely to be for the better. Feel free to revert if you don't like. - Blieusong (talk) 21:56, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. Excellent composition and clarity. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  15:06, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

--Jujutacular (talk) 04:12, 26 May 2012 (UTC)