This picture is amazingly well done. When I looked at it full size I have to say I was very disappointed to see that it was shot at iso 800. By any chance would you have any shot with a lower ISO setting? --
victorrocha (
talk) 1:14, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
I've gotten a featured picture before at ISO 800, it just takes some work in post processing to get rid of the noise etc. I'd scale this down to 1000px high, apply a bit of noise reduction and then perhaps some sharpening, after that you'd have a good chance.
Noodle snacks (
talk)
03:39, 20 July 2008 (UTC)reply
I created an edited version. The only thing that might get you now is the blown background. I wouldn't worry about it too much though as the subject itself is fine and the background isn't distracting.
Noodle snacks (
talk)
04:01, 20 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Solid encyclopedic value and good technical quality (aside from the fact that it is rather underexposed). Brighten it up a little, and it would be an excellent contender for
Commons QIs. However, I'm not sure that this stands out as one of the best image shots on WP (criterion 3). It's a valuable contribution (and a very interesting artifact), but it would likely struggle FPC. If you want, give it a try at QI.
Thegreenj22:47, 6 July 2008 (UTC)reply
This picture is amazingly well done. When I looked at it full size I have to say I was very disappointed to see that it was shot at iso 800. By any chance would you have any shot with a lower ISO setting? --
victorrocha (
talk) 1:14, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
I've gotten a featured picture before at ISO 800, it just takes some work in post processing to get rid of the noise etc. I'd scale this down to 1000px high, apply a bit of noise reduction and then perhaps some sharpening, after that you'd have a good chance.
Noodle snacks (
talk)
03:39, 20 July 2008 (UTC)reply
I created an edited version. The only thing that might get you now is the blown background. I wouldn't worry about it too much though as the subject itself is fine and the background isn't distracting.
Noodle snacks (
talk)
04:01, 20 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Solid encyclopedic value and good technical quality (aside from the fact that it is rather underexposed). Brighten it up a little, and it would be an excellent contender for
Commons QIs. However, I'm not sure that this stands out as one of the best image shots on WP (criterion 3). It's a valuable contribution (and a very interesting artifact), but it would likely struggle FPC. If you want, give it a try at QI.
Thegreenj22:47, 6 July 2008 (UTC)reply