Commons:Featured picture candidates/Historical Panorama of Beirut
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Historical Panorama of Beirut, featured[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jun 2010 at 19:53:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info 2nd attempt, created by Bonfils - uploaded, nominated, stitched and restored by Banzoo -- Banzoo (talk) 19:53, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Support -- Banzoo (talk) 19:53, 5 June 2010 (UTC)- Support very interesting documentary photo, excellent quality.. Ggia (talk) 20:58, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Oppose the clone-job in the left seam misrepresents the mountain skyline. And is therefore misleading. See this image (look straight above the construction crane, the right slope is not nearly as steep as in the faked image above. I'm very skeptical of of this type of image manipulation, especially when real image content is created (rather than dust spots remove in plain blue sky). --Dschwen (talk) 14:12, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
- I understand your concerns. But I wouldn't go as far as calling it 'creating content', it's considered as some type of interpolation (the same as stitching, cleaning dirt and removing stains). The slope was suggested by the stitching procedure which is based on complex mathematical procedure, and by simply comparing the edges of the photographs. Concerning the file, I do not believe, the slope is the one you believe to be above the crane, I suspect it's somewhere behind the left building. Anyway, would you support the original instead? --Banzoo (talk) 14:49, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
- I'm fairly sure this is the slope, check the shape of the adjacent mountains, they fit perfectly. And please do not argue with complex mathematical procedures. I know how stitching works. That clone job has nothing to do with that. It was just guesswork. --Dschwen (talk) 13:09, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- I believe that the heal function is considered as well as a type of guesswork. It's a type of interpolation, there is no single solution. However, this guess was based on the slopes of the stitched work. You are welcome to provide another solution. Also, I would like to have your opinion on the un-retouched, only stitched work. Thanks! --Banzoo (talk) 19:54, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- Support Many fine respectful pieces of art and photographs have been "re-furbished". I see no problems here. Mlpearc pull my chain 'Tribs 14:58, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
- Support for historical reasons. --ianaré (talk) 04:14, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- Support -- Takabeg (talk) 10:09, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Neutral -- This is indeed an interesting and valuable picture but I'm not convinced that either of the versions deserves the FP status. I would prefer the original anyway. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:29, 7 June 2010 (UTC)- Oppose - ditto to Dschwen & Alvesgaspar - MPF (talk) 10:48, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose - I strongly oppose this sort of digital "restoration" being put up a "one of the finest images" on Wiki Commons. How can that possibly be so?
- I oppose the level of manipulation that has taken place. While I do not oppose filling in the tear with a suitable background tone, in modern restoration practices (paintings, monuments etc), the "interventions" must be apparent to the naked eye. If you have added a strip where the photo is torn, then a slight difference in texture or tonality ought to be left specifically to inform the viewer that this part is a reconstruction.
- It is incomprehensible to me that a black and white version should be preferred and put up for assessment, in preference to the sepia colour of the original! Please take it away, and put up the much more attractive sepia version.
- Re Black and White versions. My opinion is that black and white versions are often useful accessories. A much smaller version of the B&W, one which does not jam your browser when you try to load it, is always a useful thing to have, for articles where pics are presented as thumbnails, and a viewer might want to quickly check out the picture in a larger size without any trouble. If that larger size goes beyond the edges of the screen, its a nuisance for rapid viewing.
- Amandajm (talk) 09:59, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
- If I knew Commons would not encourage restoration I wouldn't spend much time and effort trying to partially restore and cleaning dirt and stains from this gargantuan panorama (100+ MPixels). But I beg to differ; a quick look at the featured pictures under the History category reveals that restoration was part of a large group of pictures. For instance, you may notice the difference between this original and the restored one. Note that the restored one always link to the original, so that users can be aware of the restoration process.--Banzoo (talk) 13:31, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
- Support - The restoration of this image is well done, it doesn't add to nor remove any detail from the original image, (for example there is no mountain that weren't in the original one). Honestly I prefer looking at the restored one than the old one. Restoration is always good, the picture is historical and not political, so it should bring the viewer as close as possible to the environment at that time. Otherwise why the hell would go to the louvre museum to see Monalisa (which was darkened by restorartion) and other paintings. SuperAriel 4:59pm 13 June 2010 (EDT)
Confirmed results:
Result: 6 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 06:00, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Historical