Content deleted Content added
Bernie Kohl (talk | contribs) |
→Amplexus (common toad): caption too wordy |
||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
:*I could give it a run through GIMP tomorrow. Little late tonight, since a download would take 10 minutes and the upload 20 (my connection sucks) [[User:Crisco 1492|Crisco 1492]] ([[User talk:Crisco 1492|talk]]) 16:12, 13 March 2012 (UTC) |
:*I could give it a run through GIMP tomorrow. Little late tonight, since a download would take 10 minutes and the upload 20 (my connection sucks) [[User:Crisco 1492|Crisco 1492]] ([[User talk:Crisco 1492|talk]]) 16:12, 13 March 2012 (UTC) |
||
::*From my point of view it is an absolute no-no to sharpen out of focus areas. A photograph is not a 3d-rendering and always has narrow depth of field. It would be technically feasible to recover all the blurred detail through deconvolution sharpening, but as soon as you run a standard sharpening filter over the image you end up destroying the photographer's initial work. When I created the image I carefully masked out the pixels within the field of focus and sharpened them using a high-pass filter. Now if you want more sharpness I can increase the strength of the filter, but please don't destroy the photograph just because some people are too technically minded. --[[User:Bernie Kohl|Bernie Kohl]] ([[User talk:Bernie Kohl|talk]]) 17:17, 13 March 2012 (UTC) |
::*From my point of view it is an absolute no-no to sharpen out of focus areas. A photograph is not a 3d-rendering and always has narrow depth of field. It would be technically feasible to recover all the blurred detail through deconvolution sharpening, but as soon as you run a standard sharpening filter over the image you end up destroying the photographer's initial work. When I created the image I carefully masked out the pixels within the field of focus and sharpened them using a high-pass filter. Now if you want more sharpness I can increase the strength of the filter, but please don't destroy the photograph just because some people are too technically minded. --[[User:Bernie Kohl|Bernie Kohl]] ([[User talk:Bernie Kohl|talk]]) 17:17, 13 March 2012 (UTC) |
||
*'''Comment''' Caption is too long. Please make more succinct in order to meet [[Wikipedia:Featured picture criteria|FP criterion #7]]; see also [[Wikipedia:Caption#Succinctness]]. —'''''[[User:Eustress|Eustress]]''''' <sup>''[[User talk:Eustress|talk]]''</sup> 19:22, 13 March 2012 (UTC) |
|||
<!-- additional votes go above this line --> |
<!-- additional votes go above this line --> |
||
{{-}} |
{{-}} |
||
Revision as of 19:22, 13 March 2012
Amplexus (common toad)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 22 Mar 2012 at 12:48:44 (UTC)
- Reason
- High resolution and quality, interesting topic (frogs mating)
- Articles in which this image appears
- amplexus, common toad
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Amphibians
- Creator
- Bernie Kohl
- Support as nominator --Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:48, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
- Support Excellent photograph and good EV. There's also a 16-bit TIFF version and the license couldn't be more open. Colin°Talk 13:38, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
- I wondered if slight sharpening would help to address the DOF issue here. It's not far off, but just enough to be marginally annoying. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 14:16, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
- I could give it a run through GIMP tomorrow. Little late tonight, since a download would take 10 minutes and the upload 20 (my connection sucks) Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:12, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
- From my point of view it is an absolute no-no to sharpen out of focus areas. A photograph is not a 3d-rendering and always has narrow depth of field. It would be technically feasible to recover all the blurred detail through deconvolution sharpening, but as soon as you run a standard sharpening filter over the image you end up destroying the photographer's initial work. When I created the image I carefully masked out the pixels within the field of focus and sharpened them using a high-pass filter. Now if you want more sharpness I can increase the strength of the filter, but please don't destroy the photograph just because some people are too technically minded. --Bernie Kohl (talk) 17:17, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
- Comment Caption is too long. Please make more succinct in order to meet FP criterion #7; see also Wikipedia:Caption#Succinctness. —Eustress talk 19:22, 13 March 2012 (UTC)