Wikipedia:Picture peer review/Tiled roof over the Weolbong Temple bell
Thought this picture is aesthetically pleasing showing the sharp contrasting lines and shapes of the roofing tiles against the infinity of the sky.
- Okay, thought I was following the step by step direction here but they are just too convoluted for a novice user to decipher. Rather than make a further mess of this I'm going to abandon this effort and allow the next capable editor that comes along to delete this mess. My apologizes Steve46814 (talk • contribs) 20:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- Fixed, i have encounted this bug before, not sure what causes it. Noodle snacks (talk) 00:41, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- It's not a bug, it's simple user error. Filling in the form and saving results in the substitution of the details entered into a template so that it looks like what you see here, not like this. The user deleted the closing double braces }} during the original creation, which means the substitution doesn't work, thus the problems seen. Go back to the original page I've linked to, click on Edit, whack in the double braces at the end, and click on Show Preview (don't Save), and you'll see it loads up properly (given the details entered). --jjron (talk) 13:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- Did just what you said and it worked just like you said. That you so much for the explanation.--Steve46814 (talk) 02:45, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
- No problem; all that stuff was opaque to me too a couple of year's back when I first got on here. :-) Just keep practising, and if you accidentally muck-up someone else will undoubtedly be able to fix it up if you can't. --jjron (talk) 08:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
- And then undoubtably tell you the wrong thing about how to fix it. Noodle snacks (talk) 10:42, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
- No problem; all that stuff was opaque to me too a couple of year's back when I first got on here. :-) Just keep practising, and if you accidentally muck-up someone else will undoubtedly be able to fix it up if you can't. --jjron (talk) 08:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
- Did just what you said and it worked just like you said. That you so much for the explanation.--Steve46814 (talk) 02:45, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
- It's not a bug, it's simple user error. Filling in the form and saving results in the substitution of the details entered into a template so that it looks like what you see here, not like this. The user deleted the closing double braces }} during the original creation, which means the substitution doesn't work, thus the problems seen. Go back to the original page I've linked to, click on Edit, whack in the double braces at the end, and click on Show Preview (don't Save), and you'll see it loads up properly (given the details entered). --jjron (talk) 13:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- Fixed, i have encounted this bug before, not sure what causes it. Noodle snacks (talk) 00:41, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- Creator
- Steve46814 (talk)
- Nominated by
- Steve46814 (talk) 20:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- Comments
- It isn't that big 1280x960 and it isn't that sharp either, sharpening may help a little. The white point needs adjusting as well. Noodle snacks (talk) 00:42, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- From my talk page:
- As far as the the picture goes: I see your point on the sharpness issue but was afraid more sharpening would cause too much noise in the sky portion of the picture (is here the place to discuss this?). The "White point": I presume that you are referring to the finial on the peak of the roof? If you don't mind, what could/should be adjusted there and why. I am the "creator" of the picture. Steve46814 (talk) 03:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- It is possible to selectively sharpen the foreground and not the sky. The white point essentially refers to what is defined as the brightest point in the image. That said, i had a look at the histogram and the exposure looks fairly fine as it is. I think that there is probably not enough detail in the shot to pass FPC. You need to have it in an article for it to pass as well. In addition many people would feel that the subject is cut off and would prefer a shot of the entire building. I also think that there is too much contrast which limits the amount of detail. I'd probably try taking it again when it isn't bright, harsh, sunlight. Noodle snacks (talk) 04:46, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- Selective sharpening I believe would require the use of layers and/or masks, a skill I've yet to master, but I appreciate knowing this photo is lacking here. So the white point is a non issue now that you have examined the histogram? Perhaps the white balance caused some concern? As far as the composition goes, it was the lines of the flat and curved tiles along with the construction of this roof that I saw as interesting. The fact that it was part of a building was not my main focus here. So I'm assuming you are saying that in order for an architectural element of a building to be of photographic interest, that architectural element should only be part of the pictures composition, not the only element comprising that photo. I would love to take a picture (a redo) of that roof/building (bell tower) again, but that will have to wait until I have the opportunity to make a return trip to South Korea - on the other side of the world right now. Thank you for all your feedback and insights.--Steve46814 (talk) 03:41, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
- It is possible to selectively sharpen the foreground and not the sky. The white point essentially refers to what is defined as the brightest point in the image. That said, i had a look at the histogram and the exposure looks fairly fine as it is. I think that there is probably not enough detail in the shot to pass FPC. You need to have it in an article for it to pass as well. In addition many people would feel that the subject is cut off and would prefer a shot of the entire building. I also think that there is too much contrast which limits the amount of detail. I'd probably try taking it again when it isn't bright, harsh, sunlight. Noodle snacks (talk) 04:46, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- As far as the the picture goes: I see your point on the sharpness issue but was afraid more sharpening would cause too much noise in the sky portion of the picture (is here the place to discuss this?). The "White point": I presume that you are referring to the finial on the peak of the roof? If you don't mind, what could/should be adjusted there and why. I am the "creator" of the picture. Steve46814 (talk) 03:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- Seconder