Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Rainforest walk delist

Rainforest walk


I was looking through the panorama section of the FP gallery as linked from above somewhere and I notice this which looked like the white balance was way off (the plants are blue!) in thumbnail. When I opened the image to full size it looked horrible, way too much artificial sharpening and IMHO suffers quite similarly to another delist nomination happened just a while back.


 * Nominate and Delist -- antilived T 08:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delist Good call. --Bridgecross 14:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I always considered this one of the most beautiful panos I've done. --Fir0002 23:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Artistic-wise, yes I do think it is very good, but technical problems limited this pano. Now I see why you sharpened it so much as it is very blurred, even though it had been downsampled quite a lot. And near the path on the right it just doesn't look natural, it looks like it had been inked over or something. -- antilived T 00:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * That edit introduced the same posterization effect as your Hawk edit (the inked over spot antilived referred to). Lighting is a bit crass. That contrastyness makes it look appealing in the small-size versions, but the full-size isn't that great. --Dschwen 11:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I honestly can't see the posterization you're talking about - can you crop/circle the area(s)? But either way I still like the original anyway --Fir0002 22:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Delist. I support the delisting as it was very much borderline for opposition when it was first nominated for me, but I think standards have improved a little since then. I actually find the edit worse than the original. I don't see the ferns as being overly blue on my display. They look about right. Its just the overall impact of the image that doesn't sit right with me. It is a bit too contrasty, the sunlight burns highlights on the far right the image and as I said in the original nomination, it would benefit from being taken on an overcast day as the light would be more diffused. It also seems to lean significantly towards the right of the frame. Its hard to tell if there is a consistent lean across the whole frame though as there are no cues on the left side. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 13:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * To clarify, I noticed that there is only a lean in the edit. The original lacks this lean but has the horizontal banding effect that I noticed in the original nomination. Is this a stitching effect of some sort? And speaking of stitching faults, the bottom left edge of the path in the original has a major stitching fault. Summary: Both have faults, but it seems the original has more. By the way, you should consider shooting with RAW if you haven't started already. Last time I asked, you claimed it wasn't necessary. In a situation such as this, it would certainly have helped.Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs)
 * Well in this particular image, not only was it not taken in RAW it was taken as a 2 megapixel image - I was on school camp with 2 GB card and space was getting tight! But in respect to the jpg/RAW battle I stick by the fact that RAW doesn't offer any advantages. Do you remember the ostrich nom? Well I actually shot that image in RAW as it was backlight and I thought I could get some more dynamic range in, and it gave me nothing extra in the blown areas. If I was to shoot this scene again I'd do it on a tripod (this one was hand held at ISO800) and do an exposure bracket. Overcast days are OK, but they tend to dull the colors --Fir0002 22:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I still stand by my point that at 2mp (downsampled from 8mp, 1/4 size), it should be sharp as a knife at full size, not like this. -- antilived T 23:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but if you still believe that RAW offers no advantages, then you're completely ignorant about it. As for the shooting RAW with the ostrich nom, you also need to know what you're doing to maximise the benefits of RAW. When an image is overexposed as much as the highlights were in that shot, it doesn't matter if you use RAW or JPG. They're just plain blown. But if you had underexposed the image so that the highlights were no longer blown and brought out the shadows in RAW conversion, it would have looked FAR better than if you had done it with JPG. That is the sort of advantages you have. It doesn't automatically fix blown highlights if you don't control the exposure too. If you continue to shoot without consideration for this sort of thing, sure, you probably won't find any advantages with RAW. But that doesn't mean they don't exist. It just means you haven't tried to make the most of the format. In any case, perhaps you should invest in a portable hard drive based card reader. They cost much less than a single lens and it seems you would benefit from one if you keep running out of space. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 07:50, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * With all due respect I think you're wrong - perhaps you'd care to post a comparison of a scene shot with a RAW and a jpg and show me the error of my ways ;-) --Fir0002 11:20, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, no I'm not going to bother handing it to you on a platter. But I will give you a url to read. It doesn't relate specifically to the example I gave but it does explain why RAW gives a better output than JPG. If you think I'm wrong, can you explain how I'm wrong? What exactly am I wrong about? Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 19:49, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well I think that you're wrong in saying that RAW offers advantages over jpeg. The article above gives no reasons at all to switch to RAW, with the only "advantages" are loose claims on imporved print quality which I know by experience is incorrect. In fact over at the Fredmiranda forums (where most people do use RAW), many people discribe a work flow where the original photo is taken in raw then converted out with DPP, then final tweaks in PS and then saved as a jpeg for printing. Why? Because most printers display even less dynamic range than a computer monitor and hence 16bit color of RAW is unnecessary and is not used in the print. Same with shadows, I can't see what usefull details RAW can get out of a pic that jpeg can't. I mean it's possible that an extremely dark picture taken in RAW can be massively lifted to reveal details that jpeg can't - but what's the pratical advantages? The quality of the lifted shadows is too rubbish to even consider using (except if you are a spy!). I might shoot a scene some time in the future with RAW and jpeg and post comparisons - unless you want to. However in any case if you want to continue this discussion I'd suggest we move it somewhere else as it is becoming irrelevant to this delist nom --Fir0002 22:33, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * One more thing... You're right, overcast days can dull the colours somewhat, but think about it.. This image was for the most part shaded from the sunlight anyway so the colours would have remained basically the same. What I was saying was that the bright overexposed parts lit by direct sunlight would not have been burnt out so much if it was an overcast day. You're right though. At the very least it would benefit from being shot on a tripod. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 09:46, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah OK fair enough - I'll add that to the wishlist for things I should have done --Fir0002 11:22, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delist. Original looks like the saturation was jacked up by 500%. Both original and edit 1 are too busy and not pleasing to the eye. Noclip 05:25, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delist per Featured picture candidates/Rogue River Oregon USA delist. ~ trialsanderrors 09:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delist - I really like this image, but we have to be consistent and I'm certain this would fail if nominated today; also per Trialsanderrors. --YFB ¿  23:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Delisted Raven4x4x 01:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)