Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Palais Saint-Georges

Palais Saint-Georges
Voting period ends on 11 Jul 2012 at 22:14:28 (UTC)
 * Reason:This has been sitting at WP:PPR since April and hasn't received any feedback. It was nominated at Commons (not by me) in March and failed, but I've now fixed the issues that were pointed out at the time.  There are some minor faults, such as the minuscule portion of antenna that is cut off, but I think the overall resolution, detail, and quality makes up for it.
 * Articles in which this image appears:Saint George Palace, Rennes
 * FP category for this image:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
 * Creator:User:Julia W


 * Support as nominator --Julia\talk 22:14, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good. I don't see any major technical problems. Contributes excellent EV. Dusty 777 02:36, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Support per nom --Muhammad (talk) 06:22, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Good EV. I couldn't care less about the top of the antenna, but the branch on the top right corner is not ideal in terms of composition, although helped by the dark cloud. Despite this and other minor technical shortcomings, do support. It does supersede a number of super-trashy images in that Commons folder. -- ELEKHHT 08:30, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. Excellent detail and an aesthetically pleasing subject. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  10:20, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I like the two guys having a chat centre-stage. "Hey, Michel, what do you know about droit d'image in French law?" "To be honest, Baptiste, I'm just happy to be in a potential featured picture, ." I don't suppose they'll sue but if you have an image of the front door without them among the 22 images perhaps you could substitute that. Yomangani talk 10:49, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Very amusing, but I'm not sure it's a significant enough issue to warrant re-stitching. They're almost unidentifiable, and are not visible in a location in which one would expect privacy. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  11:17, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Moreover, they provide a valuable scale reference. 131.137.245.207 (talk) 14:27, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't have any frames without them lurking. I've already done a lot of work with layers in order to remove clueless tourists who kept wandering into the pictures, so if I could have avoided the firemen (particularly the one in orange hi-vis) I would have done.  Le droit à l'image applies less so to public figures who are carrying out their duties.  The two men are employees of the city, standing in front of the city's fire department building, where they work.  Considering that Rennes prominently put this building on its tourist map, I'd say the fireman's biggest beef would be with the city, not me, ;)  Julia\talk  17:17, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Support A great encyclopaedic image. However, I do think the two characters in the centre spoil the picture. The hi-vis chap in particular just draws the eye and I bet that's what everyone zooms in on when they see the picture. If they had been sitting in deck-chairs surveying the gardens they work in, then it might be a bit amusing. Considering the manipulation already going on, I'd consider cloning them out would be a harmless alteration as the background behind them is easily created and doesn't contain any vital detail of the subject. The girl on the LHS could also be removed, though she's harder to spot in the first place. That would result in a pristine photo of the building/gardens that would be more generally useful and without any distracting temporary elements. Colin°Talk 11:04, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I tried cloning them out a couple of weeks ago but I wasn't happy with the result (mostly the fault of my subpar Photoshop skills). I have another frame showing both their faces clearly but they are also both closer to the door where it would be easier to remove them.  I'll re-stitch and have another go.  Julia\talk  21:19, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Done (uploaded over top). While I was there I realised I could also fix the out of focus areas on the left side of the building.  :)  Julia\talk  00:00, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I actually liked the version with the people (gardeners?). Agree with the IP 131.137.245.207 above that they provided scale reference and were not distracting. -- ELEKHHT 01:31, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 *  Weak support nice large image with good EV, but grainy when viewed at 100%. Pine✉ 04:37, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Judging an image of this size (50 megapixel) at 100% isn't really appropriate though. Would you be saying weak support if it was a super sharp 5 megapixel image? It would look better at 100% but would have significantly less detail visible. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  04:51, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I would prefer a sharp 50 MP image to a mildly grainy 50 MP image. A super sharp 5 MP image for a scene of this size might not get my full support for a different reason, namely the one that you mentioned: insufficient detail for the size of the scene. I try to make a case by case evaluation. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#008C3A 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#01796F -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;"><b style="color:#01796F;">Pine</b><sup style="color:#01796F;">✉ 05:07, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * We'd all "prefer" a perfect image, but I really don't think it at all fair or reasonable to knock half a point off your vote due to pixel-peeping issues that are only visible at 50MP. And certainly not while our current minimum requirements are at the embarrasingly low level of <2MP. If Julia had downsized this to 24MP, we'd have been impressed at the apparent sharpness and would't be aware of any loss of detail. I appreciate some scenes do need a v big image to supply sufficient detail, but can you explain what detail is missing? For example, the hedge in the centre occupies 4% of the height of the image yet I can see the individual leaves on it. Same goes for the tiles on the roof. And the subject is a huge palace, not "roofing" or "hedge". In a recent talk page discussion somebody-who-shall-remain-nameless argued against rejecting a "clear, freely licensed, [...] excellent illustration of the subject [...] solely for low pixel count". Yet this criticism is only possible due to the remarkably high pixel count. These sort of judgements really make one want to give up.
 * Having said that, Julia, this version does have more grain than your previous one with the people. There's also a tiny amount of CA on the white electrical tubing running along the centre of the building that wasn't there before (blue/green on top, red on bottom). I only noticed it because I loaded the previous one to compare as I hadn't noticed any grain the last time I looked at it. Has the grain crept in due to sharpening or did you turn down the NR? Did you process this differently? Colin°Talk 08:21, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I did process it differently as I had to start again from scratch in order to recover the layers. I'm pretty sure that before I gave this a denoise and possibly also sharpened it a little, whereas this time I did noise reduction on the sky only.  I think it's acceptable as it is given the resolution, but sure, I'll do a little denoising later when I'm home.  As for the CA . . . I've no idea.  I don't think I've changed anything that would have introduced it this time, or removed it last time.  I'll see what I can do.  <b style="color:#4B0082;">Julia</b>\<sup style="color:#008080;">talk  08:53, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sure you'd prefer a perfectly sharp 500 MP image too, but are you sure you're being realistic in judging it to be too grainy for full support? Does the grain really distract you from appreciating the detail? Agree with Colin... &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  08:29, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I took another look and I'm still not fond of the grain, so I'm still saying weak support. Note that this is weak support and there are plenty of supporters for this image, so the image is likely to pass. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#008C3A 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#01796F -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;"><b style="color:#01796F;">Pine</b><sup style="color:#01796F;">✉ 19:45, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Julia has uploaded a new version with more NR. Pine, forget the other supports for a moment. We're questioning why you are chopping off half a vote because of an issue only visible at 100% on a 52MP image. What if everyone did that? Can you try an experiment. Open the previous version of the picture (the one with grain) in IrfanView for example, and resample (best quality) the image to 70% without adding sharpening afterwards. That's a 25MP image. Can you see any grain? No. Its an image that if someone's £3000 Nikon full-frame camera produced directly, they'd be very pleased. And you can see all the leaves and tiles and wires and tiny details. So if Julia had uploaded that version, you wouldn't be "weak supporting" would you? So essentially, you are penalising Julia for uploading a 52MP image rather than a 25MP one. Is that fair or reasonable? -- Colin°Talk 22:07, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I can still see a lot of grain at 70%. The image looks good to me at 50%. Generally I would take a sharp 13MP image over a 50MP image that has a problematic amount of graininess or blur. I have down-sampled images for this same reason. I think quality is generally more valuable than size. Also see what the Featured Picture Criteria says: an image "shows no significant compression artifacts, burned-out highlights, image noise ("graininess") or other processing anomalies." <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#008C3A 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#01796F -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;"><b style="color:#01796F;">Pine</b><sup style="color:#01796F;">✉ 06:12, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the keyword in the criteria is "significant". The sort of grain I would find objectionable would be far stronger and more obvious even when viewing at less than 100%. The other thing to note is that a sharp 13MP is already the equivalent of a 50MP image with slight grain/softness. The difference is that once an image is downsampled, you can never get any information back that was lost, whereas you can always downsample the 50MP image later to get that sharp 13MP you prefer. This is why we always prefer higher resolution images to be uploaded (and why we don't encourage you to nitpick at 100%). In fact, IMO, the test that you just performed in which you were happy with the image quality at 50% suggests that you should fully support the image, because essentially, if you downsample an image to a resolution in which you're both happy with the detail and happy with the sharpness/image quality, then it doesn't matter what the image looks like at 100%. Anyway, nobody is forcing you to change your mind, but I think it's important to consider whether you're being reasonable. It's always possible to find faults in photos if you're picky enough. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  06:32, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Exactly. It is this sort of vote that is one reason folk take an image from their semi-pro DSLR and downsample it to "resized for web" or "HD quality" so that nobody can be picky with pixel-level details. WP is the loser there, even if it does mean somone get's their gold star with no hassles. If you are happy to accept small images at FP, then you should, to be fair, judge large ones resampled down to the same level as you would have accepted if uploaded smaller. Just because WP lets you view the image at 100% doesn't mean you have to judge it at that level. Colin°Talk 07:48, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Persuaded by Diliff and Colin to change vote above. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#008C3A 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#01796F -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;"><b style="color:#01796F;">Pine</b><sup style="color:#01796F;">✉ 19:50, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Jkadavoor (talk) 10:05, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Support per Dusty777 et all. Great image of a beautiful image. gaz hiley  15:12, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

--Makeemlighter (talk) 18:21, 12 July 2012 (UTC)