Support as nominator changed vote below to support edit 2. --
Papa Lima Whiskey (
talk;
todo) 09:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)reply
Comment there are still a few dust specs that need removing just above the right hand side of the building, should be an easy fix. I'd support after those are also fixed.
Noodle snacks (
talk) 11:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC)reply
It will take me a few hours until I can get to that. This computer has no grafx.
Papa Lima Whiskey (
talk) 12:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)reply
Weak oppose building is clipped on left :(
Mfield (
talk) 15:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC)reply
Comment Beautifully composed. The current version is a little overprocessed. Would it be possible to do a new denoising on the original photograph?
DurovaCharge! 16:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC)reply
I suspect your assessment of overprocessing would also include
this version? I haven't done any work on this image, nor am I aware of a less processed version than the latter. It seems that you have more experience in obtaining such things.
Papa Lima Whiskey (
talk) 17:37, 10 August 2008 (UTC)reply
Yes, I was comparing the nominated version to that unedited version. The latter is a little on the noisy side, and it looks to my eye that the edit is slightly more aggressive than ideal. Notice the poster boxes and glass doors--one looks a little in need of denoising, the other so smooth it resembles a render.
DurovaCharge! 01:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)reply
There are probably some other editors here who have more experience than I have with noise reduction on modern digital photography. I can do it, but it takes me a while to execute the right tweaks. If no one else steps forward in a couple of days, tug at my sleeve and I'll give it a try.
DurovaCharge! 02:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)reply
Support edit 2. Thanks. :)
DurovaCharge! 17:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)reply
oppose - looks vignetted, looks tilted, and cut off at left
deBivort 18:37, 10 August 2008 (UTC)reply
Oppose Poor crop and overprocessing. A bit too many compression artifacts. If you have an original, I might reconsider. – LATICS talk 21:00, 10 August 2008 (UTC)reply
support - Seems nice enough. Agree with Durova, though. --Meldshal 21:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)reply
Oppose Per LHS cropping issues and sky is over processed --
Fir0002 11:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)reply
Support Pounds of wow! Much more important than any tiny technical flaws (although by all means fix any that can be fixed).
Fg2 (
talk) 12:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)reply
Comment Per Durova's comments above, here's a less aggressive NR edit (Edit2). If I missed anything let me know and i'll fix and upload over. I am still not supporting though per my original vote.
Mfield (
talk) 03:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)reply
Oppose Support edit 2Until the dust spots in the sky for both are cloned out. Looks good now.
Noodle snacks (
talk) 06:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)reply
Ooops sorry - should have got them all now.
Mfield (
talk) 20:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)reply
Support edit 2. Looks good after brief review.
Papa Lima Whiskey (
talk) 12:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)reply
Not promoted MER-C 07:32, 17 August 2008 (UTC)reply
Support as nominator changed vote below to support edit 2. --
Papa Lima Whiskey (
talk;
todo) 09:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)reply
Comment there are still a few dust specs that need removing just above the right hand side of the building, should be an easy fix. I'd support after those are also fixed.
Noodle snacks (
talk) 11:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC)reply
It will take me a few hours until I can get to that. This computer has no grafx.
Papa Lima Whiskey (
talk) 12:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)reply
Weak oppose building is clipped on left :(
Mfield (
talk) 15:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC)reply
Comment Beautifully composed. The current version is a little overprocessed. Would it be possible to do a new denoising on the original photograph?
DurovaCharge! 16:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC)reply
I suspect your assessment of overprocessing would also include
this version? I haven't done any work on this image, nor am I aware of a less processed version than the latter. It seems that you have more experience in obtaining such things.
Papa Lima Whiskey (
talk) 17:37, 10 August 2008 (UTC)reply
Yes, I was comparing the nominated version to that unedited version. The latter is a little on the noisy side, and it looks to my eye that the edit is slightly more aggressive than ideal. Notice the poster boxes and glass doors--one looks a little in need of denoising, the other so smooth it resembles a render.
DurovaCharge! 01:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)reply
There are probably some other editors here who have more experience than I have with noise reduction on modern digital photography. I can do it, but it takes me a while to execute the right tweaks. If no one else steps forward in a couple of days, tug at my sleeve and I'll give it a try.
DurovaCharge! 02:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)reply
Support edit 2. Thanks. :)
DurovaCharge! 17:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)reply
oppose - looks vignetted, looks tilted, and cut off at left
deBivort 18:37, 10 August 2008 (UTC)reply
Oppose Poor crop and overprocessing. A bit too many compression artifacts. If you have an original, I might reconsider. – LATICS talk 21:00, 10 August 2008 (UTC)reply
support - Seems nice enough. Agree with Durova, though. --Meldshal 21:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)reply
Oppose Per LHS cropping issues and sky is over processed --
Fir0002 11:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)reply
Support Pounds of wow! Much more important than any tiny technical flaws (although by all means fix any that can be fixed).
Fg2 (
talk) 12:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)reply
Comment Per Durova's comments above, here's a less aggressive NR edit (Edit2). If I missed anything let me know and i'll fix and upload over. I am still not supporting though per my original vote.
Mfield (
talk) 03:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)reply
Oppose Support edit 2Until the dust spots in the sky for both are cloned out. Looks good now.
Noodle snacks (
talk) 06:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)reply
Ooops sorry - should have got them all now.
Mfield (
talk) 20:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)reply
Support edit 2. Looks good after brief review.
Papa Lima Whiskey (
talk) 12:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)reply
Not promoted MER-C 07:32, 17 August 2008 (UTC)reply