Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Hong Kong Island north coast and Kowloon

Hong Kong Island north coast and Kowloon

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Sep 2015 at 16:16:30 (UTC)

Reason: High EV and resolution, notable scenery, fine contrast.
Articles in which these images appear: Hong Kong
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Urban
Creator: Exploringlife

Support as nominator – Exploringlife ) 16:16, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - We have several views of the Hong Kong skyline featured, all of which are better quality than this. Here, the buildings are leaning, blocked by the hill, and the resolution is lower than previous images. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:11, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, there are several pictures of Hong Kong skyline featured, but almost night scenes, also not that angle even in daytime (people mostly taken in Peak Tower, but I'm taken in middle section of Lugard Road, which are different places and views). Leaning because I'm not using Panorama to take photo, I only need to ensure buildings locating center of the picture not lean, left and right end buildings are the same small amount leaning then just okay. Exploringlife ) 03:36, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Now I've enlarged the resolution of Original 1 from 2,333 x 1,750 to 4,333 x 3,250 pixels (Edit 1), meanwhile provide Original 2 (another angle taken at Peak Tower) for choosing, the Original 2 is less leaning and also have an enough and clear resolution of 3,027 x 2,250 pixels. Even Edit 1's pixels reached 3,000 above, the image noise is not obvious when enlarging to watch. Furthermore, this skyline with heavy fog or hazy on the top of the picture, still successfully elected featured picture, however my Edit 1 and Original 2 under good visibility with nearly zero smog, therefore I don't think my portfolios are wrosen than him. Exploringlife ) 08:42, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - You have "enlarged" the original - and it became fuzzy! The requirement is that the original should be of large size - upsampling is frowned upon and will not improve the chances of passing! --Janke | Talk 10:04, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - I still believe clear visibility of my portfolios is an advantage compare with this , whatever finally my picture featured or not, the featured picture with poor visibility should consider for delisting to maintain basic standard of featured photograph. Another point is the original picture size did not represent the real size when first uploading to commons, actually I've reduced some resolution before first upload, I can show the real original size picture to you by verify in exif data if you want to see. Exploringlife ) 10:18, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - Downsampling is also frowned upon, particularly when there are no technical reasons to do so. Visibility in the night time image (and sharpness!) is fine with me. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:29, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        Downsampling can reduce image noise, upsampling is much difficult to keep image details well/sharpness than downsampling, unless via professional image software, so criteria should allow suitable down/upsampling to improve images. Exploringlife ) 04:46, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Compare the sharpness of the night photo you mention and your upsampled one, and you'll see why it probably will not become a FP. (PS: Your elaborate sig doesn't help at all... ;-) --Janke | Talk 15:43, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose both per Chris Woodrich - even in the second original picture (surely should be a seperate nom unless posted at same time?) there is lean on the buildings, & lots of noise/focus issues. Not up to the standard of the pictures that normally pass here sorry. gazhiley 12:02, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The image was added to Hong Kong twenty minutes before the nomination here. WP:FP?: "It is preferable to wait a reasonable period of time (at least 7 days) after the image is added to the article before nominating it, though this may be ignored in obvious cases, such as replacing a low-resolution version of an image with a higher resolution of the same image." I wouldn't say this is an obvious case. Belle (talk) 09:17, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral per Belle. --Tremonist (talk) 12:57, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw No matter how many oppose votes, now I withdraw this voting and closing the discussion. If my photo become English Wikipedia FPC again, that means my camera has replaced by a high definition one. Exploringlife (talk) 13:46, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- >Exploringlife, I know this image is now withdrawn, but I just wanted to point something out... It doesn't have to be a panorama for the vertical lines to be vertical. It's simply good practice for architectural photography. It can be done with a regular camera too, either by centring the middle of the frame on the horizon (and then cropping the part of the image that isn't needed), or by digitally adjusting the perspective. Neither requires a panorama. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 00:14, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 18:20, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn nomination. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 18:20, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]