Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Melk - Abbey - Library.jpg

Melk - Abbey - Library.jpg.

 * Reason:Found this while browsing. Thought it was a very good image.
 * Articles in which this image appears:Private library
 * FP category for this image:Places
 * Creator:Emgonzalez


 * Support as nominator --Raul654 (talk) 06:23, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Beautiful lighting. Interesting library. Makes one want to click on it for a closer look. Greg L (talk) 15:51, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose a beautiful image, but bad technical quality: jpg artefacts and nothing realy sharp. Sorry, --Alchemist-hp (talk) 17:57, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm… I’m not seeing any jpeg artifacts. And I would hope that others who might vote here understand that the Nikon 5700’s 5 MP resolution, like nearly all digital cameras, look fuzzy when zoomed all the way to their native resolution. This is because of the way camera manufacturers count each R, G & B sub-pixel as a “pixel”, which is unlike computer monitors, where only three-color triads are considered as a pixel. All one need do is zoom out 50% to obtain pleasant sharpness in digital pictures. What contributors might consider doing is using Photoshop to reduce their native-resolution files by 50% (to 1280 in this case) and then people wouldn’t see fuzziness. But then, that would be pushing the lower limits of what is considered acceptable resolution for FP status. Give the industry another 18 months and the 5 MP cameras will largely be replaced by 10 and 12 MPs. Greg L (talk) 21:21, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Support Yes, it's not amazingly sharp, and yes, it has blown highlights, but it's still a fine image. The criterion is not perfection, "only" excellence. HereToHelp (talk to me) 23:06, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Support - looks great! Airplaneman   ✈  02:47, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Sorry, I don't see the "amazing" sharpness. There's a bit of noise in the dark areas and the highlights are blown out.  Also, the composition is not very good, unbalanced and not centered. Luca (talk) 04:14, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * He wrote “Yes, it’s not amazingly sharp.” Greg L (talk) 04:39, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Heh, yes, you're right. But still, nothing changes regarding my opinion and comment in general. Luca (talk) 21:06, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose too blured at full res - a better camera would take a better pic so I cannot support this as can be re-taken with a better cam to obtain a better picture Gazhiley (talk) 14:32, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. Maybe some sharpening could be useful? Brandmeister[t] 17:24, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment… So I did. I took the image, hit it with one shot of “Sharpen edges” in Photoshop, and reduced its dimensions by the square root of 0.5 (to 1810 pixels wide). The result is very sharp at 100%. Anyone can repeat this themselves, or can e-mail me via Wikipedia’s e-mail facility. I’ll e-mail back with the file. Greg L (talk) 21:06, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose It's nice, but the standard for architecture is high, and I don't think this is as sharp as we would expect; and it looks like it was supposed to be composed symmetrically, but isn't. Fletcher (talk) 22:03, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Sharpness issues mainly, but also colour balance and lack of perspective correction. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  08:42, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Issues with sharpness, and visible noise. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 19:56, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

--Makeemlighter (talk) 02:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Per WP:SNOW. Makeemlighter (talk) 02:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)