Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Wave-cut platform

Wave-cut platform

Downsampled to 1595x800, virtually no detail loss, but got rid of edge (compression) effects and softness, image is still large enough.

A composite of three images taken from the coastal path at Southerndown. It's a little soft at full resolution, but I think this is a good illustration of wave-cut platform nonetheless. The tide was well out, leaving a large area of the platform exposed. Used in Wave-cut platform and Erosion.

Self-nominate and support. - Yummifruitbat 20:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak oppose~~. Good image. I have one problem with it: the obvious compression artifacts. If that's resolved I'll support it. --Pharaoh Hound 22:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support edit 1. Excellent. --Pharaoh Hound 13:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question. What is a compression artifact.211.30.199.85 22:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It's square blockey artifacts See here: Wikipedia:What_is_a_featured_picture? (the donkey pic) -Ravedave 23:45, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Too boring. Looks fake evn though it's real.211.30.199.85 22:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
New user, all edits on FPC. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-04 03:48

Oppose. Not striking. Good image, but it isn't going to draw the eye of readers.--ragesoss 23:11, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support downsampled. Intriguing and encyclopedic, ~~but the quality is a problem~~. Still seems too sharp, but it's not as bad as the original. -- bcasterline • talk 23:13, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I think it's a really interesting topic, and the difference of the sky from the land is quite striking. Also, I may be blind, but where are the compression artifacts? --Fbv65e del ^{(discuss | contribs)} 03:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support downsampled. Encyclopedic, illustrates subject very well. Downsampling got rid of the edge sharpening (which may be a camera "compression artifact"), giving a crisp, sharp image with practically no loss of detail. Still large enough, at 1595x800. --Janke | Talk 07:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I have to admit I'd not noticed the edge (too long staring at the damn thing trying to make sure it was straight!) but it's in the original JPEG straight out of the camera (highest quality setting) and all the editing/processing was done in .PSD to avoid over-compression. I'm afraid until I stop being a student and can afford a proper digi SLR, I'm stuck with what my camera gives me! --Yummifruitbat 12:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. As per ragesoss Swollib 09:01, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. Personally, I find this image very eyecatching. My only concern is the artefacts in the water, but am still willing to support, and have a preference for original. --jjron 11:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I Think this has the potential to be Featured. Is there a way to remove the artifacts (as the edited version claims to have done) but retain the original's colouring? The edited version has been washed out. Witt y lama 16:12, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I bet you're comparing both tumbnails on a LCD or laptop screen! The colors are exactly the same in both images, but an LCD will show a vertical color/contrast difference over the screen area. LCDs are not the best screens for evaluating color and contrast. If you have a chance to look at this on a CRT, you'll see what I mean. Or, you can load both image pages (not the full-size images) in browser tabs, and switch between them - no visible color change. --Janke | Talk 17:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. Just by scrolling up/down I can see the images change colour (slightly). I never knew that. Witt y lama 07:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I think it is striking, and an excellent illustration of the wave cut platform. Iorek85 23:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very cool thing! Staxringold _talk^contribs 01:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Downsampled That looks wonderful. HighInBC 13:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Support edited version. Nice image, striking and informative. I must not have viewed this one at 100% before; the oversharpening is obvious and detracts from the image. It is an excellent image for demonstating this particular geological formation, but it really is lacking from a technical perspective. --moondigger 05:17, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I'm sorry, but I find nothing ecstatic about this image. K ilo-Lima|^(talk) 18:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Like most images, it won't be an FP forever, but I'm willing to give this one a go. Nice formation. Rocks are grey, so what? Support downsampled. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 22:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support slight preference for downsampled. Good enough pic, interesting formations. Stevage 11:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support This has got to be one of the greatest pictures on Wikipedia. I wish I could see that in real life -- BWF89 12:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Wonderful. - Darwinek 15:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Beautiful location... but the image is scarred by significant over-sharpening artifacts (Esp white halos in the sky around the rock) which are visible even after significant downsampling. So close... it begs to be done just a bit better. Featuring this would remove the incentive to create a better image, a shame when a better image is so clearly possible. --Gmaxwell 12:25, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support edited version - good encyclopedic value, clear and good colour, but ordinary composition. --P199 00:11, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the picture quality is terrifying. It isn't sharp, it looks like a blurry photo that someone tried to sharpen and failed rather miserably... drumguy 8800 - speak 04:16, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice depiction of Wave Cut Platform. Advanced 17:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose artifact-ey. -Ravedave 17:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Image quality is not great. --Windsok 06:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support Amazing photo, erosion patterns, interesting. -Aled D 13:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. As good quality and well taken as the pciture is, I can't help to fell that the subject just isn't that interesting. -Nauticashades 21:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User's only contributions are on FPC --Fir0002 08:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support edit. Very interesting subject, and a good perspective. — Vildricianus 14:25, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose All versions. Subject matter is not too spectacular (IMO) and as mentioned quailty is not so good. --Fir0002 08:30, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Fir0002 08:44, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]