Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Laba tube delist

Thurston lava tube

One of our worst-quality featured photos. The thing is a gigantic compression artifact manifested in photo form! The original nomination is available here - I think what happened is that most of the Supports were for a previous lower-res verion.

Nominate: Delist as per above --⁪froth^{T C} 19:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per Froth. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 20:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Ugh, grainyness. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 21:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yes, there are image quality problems. Not too severe for justifying the delisting of a picture made of something as hard to photograph as the inside of a lava tube. Show me a better quality picture of the same thing that could be made available here! If you can't, I guess there must be something special about this picture. Mikeo 21:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Difficulty of the shot is no excuse for abysmal image quality. However that graininess seems repairable enough, anyone want to try their hand at it? --⁪froth^{T C} 21:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the opposite is applied regularly on FPC. If the subject is easy the pic must be perfect. --Dschwen 21:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delist. yep, it's too grainy. Witty lama 01:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Clean Although grainy, it can easily be cleaned up with somebody with the appropriate software. Sharkface217 05:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delist OK, I'm looking at this in 33.3% in Photoshop and I can see the artifacts. Happy to reconsider if someone can clean this up, but this version has to go. ~ trialsanderrors 06:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC) | Unchanged. ~ trialsanderrors 03:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delist I don't think any software can clean up the image when the detail is not there to begin with. And the difficulty of the shot does not outweigh the low quality. It doesn't seem that getting into this lava tube is so difficult anyway; it seems to be part of a guided tour with electric lights and a smooth path. --Bridgecross 14:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The noise could be cleaned up fairly easily, though striking a balance between noise cleanup and image detail might be tricky. I could give this a try later today. If anybody else has Noiseware Professional, I'd suggest starting with the "Weaker noise" preset and tweaking from there. -- Moondigger 16:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delist It's not the graininess that made me say delist, but the sharpness. It looks like the camera had been moved during exposure.--antilived ^{T | C | G} 21:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Edits Ok, I'm made 2 edits very fast. I couldn't put much time. But here it is. Hope it helps. --Arad 22:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delist still. Edit 2 did a good job of removing graininess but it's blurry now! --⁪froth^{T C} 02:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Unless I am mistaken, I believe this has been nominated for delist before. --Lewk_of_Serthic _contrib ^talk 03:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You are indeed mistaken. This has never been nominated for delisting. howch e ng {chat} 22:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delist still Debivort 21:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delisted Raven4x4x 02:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]