Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/El Castillo Stitch 2008 Edit 2.jpg

El Castillo at Chichen Itza

Reason: I've been meaning to stitch this for some time, and now that I got around to it I think it came out pretty well. Its been downsampled heavily but there is still some apparent softness in a few places on the monument. I'm not totally sure what is causing those, but as far as I know, they are accurate resizings. The light is good in this image and I took advantage of it with the composition. I would have liked to get a late evening or early night shot but they close the park at 6:00 so I couldn't stick around that long. I cloned out a few tourists, including some people having a picnic in the LRHS of the image. The guy with the white shirt I left in for scale and the people on the left would have been problematic to remove.
Articles this image appears in: Yucatán, Chichen Itza, Mexico
Creator: Fcb981(talk:contribs)

Support as nominator Fcb981(talk:contribs) 18:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think you may have a few stitching errors. Check the wire rope: it disappears near the man in the white shirt, and there's a misalignment at the bottom-right corner and below the bottom-left corner of the pyramid. Also, check the clump of grass ~4155 px from left, ~2305 from top. It's repeated three times with softness in between; it might be a stitch problem. Other than that, it looks excellent. Thegreenj 19:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Good spotting. The repeated grass would be a cloning mistake (that I will fix) The disappearing rope is strange and I will see what I can do to correct it. you'll have to point out to me where those mis-alignments are though. The uplift in the curb below the left corner is in the original segment and on the right I see a blend line if I look hard but there isn't much I can do about it. The rope got erased there as well so I'll add it back in. I'll also correct the stitch error in the first post to the the right of the man in the white shirt, that I didn't catch on my first run through. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 23:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support if the minor stitching errors are fixed. -- Naerii 23:02, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed I corrected the problems that thegreenj saw and a few other's. Did I miss any of them?? -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 23:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - A quite competent stitching job and a good quality image. Nothing extraordinary though. I don't like the angle (the camera is too close to the building) and the tourists disturb. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not level. The two tourists in front of the pyramid really detract from the photo as well. Lipton sale (talk) 02:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You may want to take a look at some of the edits without tourists, also, I am pretty certain that the image is level. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 03:06, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing special, the harsh lighting and shaddow degrades image a bit.Capital photographer (talk) 03:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tired, annoyed, Comment Well its an awfully good thing I anticipated all these wonderful objections. I figured (Like the rest of you): Chichen Itza, theres no reason there should be tourists, its only the best known Mayan ruin in the world and I'm only there during spring break!!! But to my surprise, there were tourists. It was a good thing I had 5000 pasos to bribe a few mexican cops to close off the area for my picture taking!!! it'd be damn awful if we had other FPs with tourists in them. Its also a good thing I decided to take this shot from further back. Oh and in terms of lighting... Maybe I should have waited for a dull, thin, grey, overcast, at dawn so that the saturation and contrast would not exist until digitally pushed into the realm of fantasy. Harsh light serves this stone monument well. What important detail is in the deep shadows?????!!!!! Nada. I agree that harsh shadows are bad in some situations... Situations where they obscure important parts of the composition. I just spent 2 hours hunched over my monitor removing tourists from a tourist trap! My contact lens prescription just got a diopter worse and I didn't do four homework assignments due tomorrow. I'm really sorry but the rope becomes obscured in places in the edit... I bet that requires an oppose. Yes also, this is really nothing special. with all respect... A 5000px reduced from 12000px wide stitched panorama at nearly sunset of one of the most impressive monuments in the world is nothing special when a toyota in some fog is!... are you high?! Alvagaspar: How can you possibly pretend to be able to objectively review my nomination literally a week since you called me a troll without provocation. I'm still waiting on that apology BTW. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 06:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Quite a measured and dignified response. Regarding your comment "...panorama at nearly sunset of one of the most impressive monuments in the world is nothing special when a toyota in some fog is!" This is a silly comparison given they belong to entirely different categories. I believe that for an image of a vehicle on Wikipedia, it (Toyota Aurion) is unique... special even. I stand by my comment that your Edit 1 and Original are nothing special, however, I am not making that judgment as a comparison to mine, only the merits of the images you have submitted. I am also not seeking to say the subject of your image is less important than a vehicle in mist, I judge the image as per FP criteria, not the subject of the image. Allow me to reply to those parts of your comment that are relevant to my previously posted critique. "Oh and in terms of lighting... Maybe I should have waited for a dull, thin, grey, overcast, at dawn so that the saturation and contrast would not exist until digitally pushed into the realm of fantasy. Harsh light serves this stone monument well. What important detail is in the deep shadows?????!!!!! Nada. I agree that harsh shadows are bad in some situations... Situations where they obscure important parts of the composition." This is just a weak excuse for poor exposure/post processing. Looking at the histogram and adjusting contrast and brightness yields a more lifelike exposure. Edit1 has flat exposure with poor contrast that one might expect of mobile phone camera. The colours are indeed vivid in my image you have chosen as an example of "fantasy", but you know what, the vehicle itself is accurately presented. You present here however an average snapshot. A bit of tweaking of the levels, contrast and brightness in Photoshop presents a lifelike image that is not fantasy (see example). You also admit to cloning parts of the image which to me may breach one of the FP criteria of how much digital alteration is allowed. Seriously, when you put your photos up anywhere for people to judge, expect criticism and take it on board. I wouldn't have a any awards or sales of my work if I didn't listen to the criticism of my past work and used it to improve. Capital photographer (talk) 07:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The shadow from the staircase on the right is darker in your edit, while the major shadow was lifted without color adjustment so that it looks like some bad HDR. Now, Mr. Criteria, I believe that the criteria for exposure is that the exposure is that it is accurate, not HDR like. Did I mention that I'm not a huge fan of the HDR look ? Maybe getting the color rendition in the clouds faithful is less important, and a cell phone would retain the clouds highlights and the tree's shadows. Do you want to know how I metered this? Spot metered the brightest white in the scene and the darkest shadow I could find then a compensation chart to put the midtones about a third of a stop lower than normal. The exposure is, IMO, as accurate as possible. You also seem a bit obsessed with post to be honest. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 14:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Can you guys stop chucking things at each other? Because nobody is benefiting. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 12:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes, I'm beginning to realize the futility of arguing with this guy. He reminds me a bit of Mbz1. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 14:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        While you remind me of yourself, Fcb981 - very rude as always.BTW I am really thrilled that you still remember me! and that's why I Support original image.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Thanks for the support, I guess this isn't a "No Value Image" =). I didn't mean to say anything offensive, only that you are a stubborn and tough opponent in an argument, and there is nothing wrong with that. :) It's good to see you back. I guess you didn't leave for good? -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 22:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I didn't call it nor imply any opinion of it being a "no value image", every image has value and it (edit 1) is a good image... however... I do not personally beleive Edit 1 has proper exposure/processing (in particular contrast and levels) to warrant an FP. I do appologise if you thought I considered it worthless, I was merely highlighting some easily correctable flaws I perceived that if remedied (like in Observer Edit) would certainly change my vote. Beleive it or not I am just offering a conrtuctively critical eye. Capital photographer (talk) 00:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Sorry, I wasn't clear in my comment about "No Value image", I understand that isn't what you are saying. That was a quibble Mbz1 and I had awhile back. here and here as well as some nominations over at commons. It was just a joke on my part for finally getting a support vote from Mbz1. =) -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 04:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        finally? finnaly? (-.-) --Mbz1 (talk) 13:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm withholding support for now because I'm on an uncalibrated (and frankly awful) monitor, but I have to oppose the edits because they have way too much digital manipulation. FWIW, I have no problem at all with the tourists, in the first place because there's little to be done about them and in the second because they help provide scale for exotic places like this. I don't think it's reasonable to expect a perfectly clear shot of a high-traffic tourist area and I think Fcb has done a good job on minimizing their intrusion so that all they block are some less interesting bits of wall. Matt Deres (talk) 13:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Further Comment I'm puzzled by the supports for the edits. It strikes me as odd that we get opposes for minor stitching errors in clouds, yet the glaring stitching problems here don't elicit a comment. Guys, the ropes are all broken, some disappear and reappear, and the pathway looks completely un-natural. Yes, they're not the subject of the picture, but they're right there in the foreground as a distraction. Matt Deres (talk) 10:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, there wern't really stitching errors in the Version 2 near the ground... Those would be cloning artifacts. personally, I don't really care about tourists, but the monument sure looks more impressive without them. :\ -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 14:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Confused. What is the relation between Original, Edit1, and Observer Edit? Edit1 cannot possibly be and edit of Original. Could you get the labeling straight, please. --Dschwen 15:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And what the hell is an Observer Edit? Shouldn't it be Edit2 per convention. How do you edit something as an observer, either you edited it or you didn't. Mfield (talk) 20:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fixed. NauticaShad e s 21:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Appologies for the confusion caused. My logic was that the "Edit #" format should remain for edits made by the original nominator/creator. The "observer edit", an edit made by I as an observer, showing what I beleive the image should look like... visual feedback. The new convention of "Edit - user" works better though. Capital photographer (talk) 00:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support ~~Edit~~ Version #3. I see no real merit to the above complaints (not to mention that with the second version and its edit, some are no longer valid). All I see is a very high quality image of an important Mexican landmark. Good job to Capital photographer on the edit: the details have really been brought out. NauticaShad e s 21:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No need to clone out the tourists. They add perspective. NauticaShad e s 21:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support. Considering the quality of the image and the difficulty of obtaining it, this most definitely desrves to be an FP, especially if stitching errors are fixed. --Jamesflomonosoff (talk) 21:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support version 3 only. Now that I've seen it I can say I like it and the cloning is completely superfluous. Reluctant support version 2 or edit of version 2. Reluctant, because I actually don't want to award rude bitching. Then again if you look past that, there are some strong points. I don't like version 1 though. The colors look like a faded photograph from the sixties, and the mood lighting doesn't help the EV. I'd like to see an original unretouched version though! I don't mind the tourists at all. If that is how the site looks then that is how it should appear in the article. It's that simple. --Dschwen 22:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Point taken, sorry about the bitching... Indeed that's what it was. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 04:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - So, any chance we can see an unretouched version? --Dschwen 14:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'd like to second that request. I really want to support the original, but the talk here has gotten me concerned about how much manipulation has gone on. I'm really not in favour of cloning over things unless its really unavoidable or if it's removing something really inconsequential. Big steaming pile of poo right in the foreground? Go ahead and wipe 'er out. Otherwise, less is best. Matt Deres (talk) 20:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Ok, I'll run the files and upload them. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 22:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Thanks. After reexamining I'll actually have to add an Oppose Original, Version 2, and Version 2 edit. The clone job is smudgy, and its extent is too big for me to tolerate it. Compared to the original the contrast boost is no enhancement either. Version 3 is just fine as it is. --Dschwen 19:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support version #2 - meets all the criteria.--Svetovid (talk) 23:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support ~~version #2 and/or edit of version#2~~ version #3. I prefer it without the cloning. Cacophony (talk) 03:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support version #2 It's subjective but I like it as it is, without the additional manipulation. Mfield (talk) 04:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Original, Ver 2, Edit of Ver. 2. There are still several stitcing errors in the lower wire in front in all editions (vertical displacements, soft spots) and some additional soft spots, but for me it is a minor detail, especially considering the large resolution, it is almost unfair to look at it in 100%. The image is very crisp, it has EV, and in this case I do no mind a tourist or two - it gives a sense of scale. I'd go to full support if the last remaining stitching errors were fixed. -- Slaunger (talk) 10:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Ver. 3 This one looks good to me. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:53, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can someone explain please? I don't see how you get Version #2 from the original - it's at a different angle (or have you somehow created steps on the left?) The sky has changed from what you would expect in Mexico to an overcast English sky. I see little value in losing authenticity in pursuit of an unreal techno-perfect ideal. For me the solitary tourist wasn't a problem, and the heat brown, though perhaps a bit strong felt OK. The new clouds add too much clutter and don't help the composition, but the cropping is better in the edit of V2. Motmit (talk) 19:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Version two is an entirely different picture. Were it the same it would be labeled an edit—which it was initially, to some confusion above. Thegreenj 20:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks. I take it then the sky is genuine in Ver 2 and there has not been any significant modification. Both pics are good enc and give different impressions. Which is better is hard to say and so I'll leave it at that Motmit (talk) 22:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Version 3 could use a bit more contrast but other than that, I feel it's a good image and the subject benefits from the presence of persons near it to give it scale. One must also acknowledge that it is now a tourist attraction so tourists are now a part of its existence too.Capital photographer (talk) 12:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support original or version 3. The other versions have some terribly visible operation scars in the lower left-hand area. Dorftrottel (complain) 19:05, April 30, 2008
Observation since Version 3 added - for me this addresses the tourist in/out question (in general but not for this pic) - tourists looking at a sight add strength and value, whereas tourists just ambling past in a disorderly manner and not looking at it can be distracting. Motmit (talk) 09:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I find the two birds in the picture distracting when viewed full. Spencer^T♦^C 19:15, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:El Castillo Stitch 2008 Edit 2.jpg MER-C 09:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]