Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Kinderdijk

Kinderdijk edit

Original - Panorama of the windmills at Kinderdijk in the Netherlands

Edit 1 by User:Capital photographer - Actual panorama with some contrast adjustments.

Reason: High resolution, good composition, beautiful colours, site of cultural significance as the Mill Network at Kinderdijk-Elshout is on the UNESCO World Heritage List.
Articles this image appears in: Alblasserwaard, Kinderdijk, Netherlands
Creator: Lucash

Support as nominator Ilse @ 10:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose original - neutral edit I am not sure how the original is a panorama. It has an almost 1:1 ratio, where as panoramas are generally considered to be an image with 1:3 or greater aspect ratio although it could be expanded to include images of 1:2. Also, it is very soft viewed at full size. Have uploaded one cropped to a panoramic format with some sharpening and contrast adjustments. I feel the edit is crisper and has more depth and clarity. I have to admit that the original did not have enough resolution to crop and still keep it at FP requirements so it has being interpolated (upscaled) by 5%.Capital photographer (talk) 10:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose both. Edit 1 is an improvement on the composition but the image quality still isn't particularly good and the view of the subject is only moderately impressive. Just a bit low on the wow-factor. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. Resolution and sharpness wise, there wasn't much to work with. Edit 1 has around 30% sharpening and is still very soft. Further sharpening yielded heavy distortion. The original image appears to be only 3MP according to Photoshop. Capital photographer (talk) 12:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support edit 1 big enough according to the criteria - shows the mills 'in context' of their landscape setting - ie. flat featureless Netherlands (no offence to my Dutch cousins). --Joopercoopers (talk) 14:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose both. Not big enough given that the sharpness is lacking. Neither will an 800x600 picture fullfill the criteria after upsampling! I'm not too excited about the edit either. Crops too much from the top, I'd have left about twice the headroom above the wind mill. Nice subject, good conditions, but the technical side is way too weak for FP. --Dschwen 15:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, not nearly sharp enough. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξ φ 19:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose both - technical quality is not there. I don't like the composition (for an encyclopaedic image) either.--Svetovid (talk) 09:03, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose Technical issues are a major concern. --Sharkface^T/_C 19:28, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 09:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]