Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Upernavik

Evening panorama of Upernavik, Greenland

 * Reason:A highly detailed panorama from an unusual place, which is not easily accessible. The prefabricated wooden houses are exported from Denmark by ship, assembled and painted in bright colors. The panorama is a stitch of 21 images taken between 11:42 pm and 11:50 pm on August 8, 2007.
 * Articles this image appears in:Upernavik (actually it is another shot from another day with a soft focus which presently appear in the article as pointed out by Jjron during peer review) -- Slaunger (talk) 11:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Creator:Slaunger


 * Support as nominator Slaunger (talk) 08:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I prefer the Original or Edit4. Although both of these edits (as well as Edit 3) are darker and less colorfull than Edit 1 and 2, I think they better represent the real scenario as it was. Nomatter which edit gets promoted, if any, I'd like to thank jjron and Mfield for spending some of their precious time on trying to improve my image. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 *  Weak Support Weak Support Edit 1 - Support Edit 2 A nice scene. The image has an odd grain to it though, much like scanned 35mm film but could be JPEG compression noise. You can see it particularly in the sky and areas of shadow.  User:Capital photographer|Capital photographer]] (talk) 09:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It looks like jpeg compression artifacts rather than film grain (blockiness & mild Posterization) but not really noticeable at 100% Thisglad (talk) 09:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

There's almost as many images up for nomination as there are supporters... Which one? MER-C 12:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Each photo is in jpg from a Canon DIGITAL IXUS 800 IS set to super-fine jpg quality. In the stitching process, tif is output. After doing all the editing steps in tif I have saved to jpeg at a quality of 92/100 in GIMP (default is 85). It is my experience that at this quality level there is no clearly visible jpeg articfacts in the image. The grain/noise you probably has two sources. 1. The original photos. 2. The curve adjustment i have made to bring in some more light and contrast in the image. Given the equipment I think it is quite close to optimal. I have had a 30 cm long print ordered, and in the print no noise is seen. IMO this is mainly a perceived on-screen thing when viewing in close to 100%. Had I applied NR more agressively, details would have been lost. -- Slaunger (talk) 09:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * JPEG compression (even at "super fine") is always present and visible, both as artifacts and the way JPEG compression degrades colour fidelity (compresses 12 or 14bit colour camera sensors capture to 8bit~). Nothing much can be done without ill effect in post-production to remove the artifacts and restore colour fidelity, but given most camera have a TIFF and or RAW option, it can be avoided. It is a very nice image and the stitching is very well done. ~12bit colour captures 4096 colours, 14bit captures over 14,000 (Source: Canon), so compressing to 8bit gives 300-600 possible colours depending on who you talk to Capital photographer (talk) 10:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * OK. Unfortunately, my camera does not allow me to save in tif or raw format, so here we are. I could probably benefit form better equipment. Unfortunately such equipment has an exccedingly low WAF. -- Slaunger (talk) 11:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * actually there is a hack for canon DIGIC II based cameras that allow them to save to RAW, but I would bet the benefits of raw vs jpeg are minimal. Thisglad (talk) 11:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Minimal? Raw can utilise the full 12bit colour (or 14bit on newer ones like the Canon 40D and Canon EOS-1Ds Mark III) the sensors can pick up so you get a larger gamut and smoother gradients. Also, it's not compressed so any subsequent saves will not result in repeated compression. Edit 1 improves it a lot, with very little artifacts in the housing area and noise reduced in the background. Anyway, because you had no choice but to use JPEG and Edit 1 is so good, I'll support. Capital photographer (talk) 11:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * for web display you have to convert to jpeg (sRGB) thus losing the benefit of the wider gamut of colors, raw does have a better dynamic range however Thisglad (talk) 12:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed, saving a final output for the web does negate some of the advantages of using TIFF or RAW. Regardless of the final output, the more in the original image, the more software has to work with for editing. Taking an image in JPEG, the colours are thrown away immediately. The final output may have a limited gamut, but more colours in the original allows an editor to have better control over what is output to the limited gamut rather than accepting whatever the camera chose to keep. Capital photographer (talk) 13:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Echoing Cap Photographer's sentiments about RAW, I can tell you that there are definitely benefits to shooting in RAW, even if the end product is 8-bit JPEG. The end quality product is fundimentally dictated by the quality in which it is captured. Sure, if you have no intentions of editing an image after shooting it, perhaps JPEG will suffice, but as soon as you introduce ANY editing or processing, working from an 8-bit JPEG is inherently inferior. You argue that the wide gamut captured by RAW is lost when converting to SRGB. This is not true. The gamut is usually compressed but not lost as such. You still have the detail available in the RAW file, and you have control over how the colour is processed. For example, if you shot a JPEG of a very red image, if it exceeded the gamut range of sRGB, all red detail would be lost. If you shot it in RAW and were able to capture the red detail within the gamut of the RAW file, you would have the ability to compress the gamut while RETAINING the red detail, if you needed to. Similarly, you have slightly more dynamic range in a RAW file that you can selectively compress when processing the image, rather than losing it the instant the JPEG is created in the camera. Even Fir0002 was a vehement benefits-of-shooting-RAW denier until recently, when he saw the light. ;-) The benefits aren't obvious to a layman, but they are there if you know how to use them and you care about quality. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 13:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, Capital Photographer, I assume when you said "~12bit colour captures 4096 colours, 14bit captures over 14,000 (Source: Canon), so compressing to 8bit gives 300-600 possible colours depending on who you talk to" that you didn't mean 4096 colours, but rather 4096 colour values per channel. By logic, 8-bit colour means 256 values, not 300-600, so I'm a little confused by what you mean depending on who you talk to. I don't see how the answer could be anything else but mathematic in nature (ie 8 bit = 2 to the power of 8 = 256, 12 bit = 2 to the power of 12 = 4096, etc). Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 13:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course it depends on which of the 10 kinds of people you talk to, those who understand binary or those who don't ;-) --Dschwen 15:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did mean per channel. Most digital cameras are capable of 12bit capture (even if they can only output 8bit JPEG) which according to multiple sources including Canon will yield 4096 possible colour values per channel. Selected newer cameras will do 14bit resulting in over 16,000 possible values per channel. It is still being debated whether this increase actually means much despite the impressive jump in possible colours on paper. Most are agreed though that it does smooth colour graidents in an image. Comparing the shots from my old and now broken 350D to my 40D and 1Ds mkIII, I certainly see smoother gradients and more vivid colour range. Capital photographer (talk) 00:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Rofl, I had to read that line 10 times, that is, twice, before I got it! -- Slaunger (talk) 20:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Jjron has been kind enough to provide an edit which has better light in the shadowy parts, and less noise as a consequence of downsampling to a pixel height of 1000 pixels. -- Slaunger (talk) 11:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Edit 1, Weak Support Original. I don't really care about the camera or format used, this is a useful image of decent quality, and is from somewhere where we're probably not going to see many photos with this amount of information. Touches I like include the icebergs floating in the bay in contrast to the mainly rocky landscape, and the design of the buildings (though I'd prefer more info on the actual photo/setting in the image summary and less about how the pano was created). --jjron (talk) 13:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I have added info about shutter speed (1/250 s) and aperture (5.5) in the image page (as well as a description of your edit and a link to the original). -- Slaunger (talk) 14:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Maintain support for Edit1 - best lighting and noise. --jjron (talk) 12:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. This is really a lovely image, and encyclopedic.  Spikebrennan (talk) 14:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment As I hate downsampling, I have added an edit inspired by Jjron's but that maintains the original size by tackling the noise problem with NoiseNinja instead. Selective reharpen instead of NoiseNinja USM to resharpen buildings without reintroducing noise into sky or causing haloing along horizon. Mfield (talk) 15:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank your for taking your time to do this edit Mfield. I am quite impressed by what you have accomplished although the previously shadowy region at the RHS of the port is quite noisy in the edit. Overall, I still think it is an improvement though. -- Slaunger (talk) 16:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem, ideally NoiseNinja would need to be applied to your full size original version before it was cropped and and sharpened - and then this problem would go away. There's too many sharpens and saves this way. Mfield (talk) 16:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You are correct about this. The edit path for your edit is non-optimal. Is there any way I could send you the enblended and stitched tif file, which is produced by Hugin? The file is on another compter but as I recall it is about 100Megs. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You may want to try saving it as a png, so it will be compressed losslessly, perhaps enough so (under 20MB) that you can upload it to Commons. Even so, I doubt it will be significantly different from a jpeg with less compression; jpeg is an excellent format, and I find there to be little difference between it and RAW/TIFF unless the photo has significant technical problems, like white balance or exposure. Thegreenj 00:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Support original It's taken under the midnight sun, so fiddling with light levels is losing the plot a bit. Good enc and pattern and interesting detail as above. It should also go in the Midnight sun article because it illustrates the sort of place that gets midnight sun and would lift that article considerably. But I am a bit puzzled as to how you have got a picture from the future Motmit (talk) 08:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Got me there on the date. Corrected! -- Slaunger (talk) 08:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Support A detailed photograph of an uncommon place. Muhammad (talk) 16:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I gave up sending or uploading the original TIF file that came out of the box, it was too large. I noticed some soft spots in the original stitch and I have therefore done a new stitch based on the latest SW releases. I have saved this new "raw" output as an 18MP 100% quality JPEG (edit3, 12 MB) such that other editors have better base material for doing edits. -- Slaunger (talk) 22:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll have a go at the new version today, hopefully there's still time to get it in before it closes. Mfield (talk) 07:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Here you go, Edit 4 added, I did the same NR and sharpening but no shadow lift as I think I prefer it without and there just isn't enough DR in the original to survive the operation nicely. Mfield (talk) 02:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you, MField. Reviewers should note that the edit 3 restitch and the new edit by Mfield has a substantially larger pixel resolution, 9095x2051 pixels. The original, edit 1 and 2 looks brighter and more colorful. This is because of a general, global tonecurve adjustment and a tad added saturation in the original prior to downsampling to 7220x1500 px. -- Slaunger (talk) 06:03, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Edit2 and Edit4, Oppose Original and Edit1 Unecessary downsampling on Original and Edit1. Mfield (talk) 18:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I understand that. You oppose the Original for "unecessary downsampling", yet support Edit2, which is...an edit of the original? --jjron (talk) 08:24, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I was mostly opposing the extra downsampled Edit1, I think the Original and Edit2 size is acceptable, yet I prefer Edit2 over the Original. I will move all my support to Edit4 though as it's all got rather confusing with so many versions. Mfield (talk) 15:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Any, clearly meets all the featured picture guidelines. EgraS (talk) 07:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Edits 1 and 4. I like the lighting on Edit 1, but Edit 4 is clearly of higher quality. Nautica Shad es  01:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Support edit 4 does that solve our problem now? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 13:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Support edit 4 Nice image, problems worked out. Spencer  T♦C 16:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose Edit 4 - the warmer colours of the earlier edits look more natural to me, given the lighting. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 18:47, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Although I am aware that the decision of which (if any) candidate will be promoted is not merely a matter of vote counting, let at least me summarize the vote part of it for convenience to the closer
 * Original: 5.5 support, 1 oppose
 * Edit 1: 5.5 support, 1 oppose
 * Edit 2: 4 support, 0 oppose
 * Edit 4: 8 support, 1 oppose
 * -- Slaunger (talk) 14:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

MER-C 06:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)