Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Rogue River Oregon USA delist

Rogue River Oregon USA edit

Photoshopping example

Original nomination: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Rogue River Oregon USA.jpg

PotD is usually a repository of great pictures, but this week has been a bit of a down week. Reading the nomination discussion, I have the feeling most editors did not actually look at the picture in full resolution. As someone just posted on the talk page, this picture suffers from massive Photoshopping and the resulting artifacts. Some details to look at:

The tree bark and railing on the upper right
The rockface above the graffiti on the middle right
Various occurences of sunlit vegetation
The water surface especially at the bottom

Since I can't modify this picture I used a simple one of my own to show what I think happened to this one: I used the original and sharpened the edges with a high sharpening radius, and increased both saturation and contrast. The result is an oversaturated image with lots of blown highlights, graininess and a lack of gradation in the details. I think the Rogue River image fails criterion #1 and should be delisted. ~ trialsanderrors 07:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delist for all reasons above. This image just looks terrible at high resolution, look at the railing along the path to the right. The colors are completely unnatural. As one of the original opposers of this image, I could not believe the glowing comments of the supporters. --Bridgecross 14:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delist for all the same reasons I opposed during the original nomination. Excessive color contrast and saturation have been substituted for luminance contrast (which can't be boosted without blowing out most of the highlights). Also, as Mikeo pointed out in the original nomination, heavy image deconvolution has been performed to reduce blurriness, which resulted in strange properties/artifacts plainly visible at full resolution. -- Moondigger 15:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delist The pic looks stunning and vivid as a thumbnail, but way way way over sharpened. JPEG artifacts, blown highlights, and host of other problems. Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 02:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delist - This seriously isn't a sketch? Jorcogα 04:28, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delist - looks incredible at 800x552 but there's just not enough detail to fill the high resolution --⁪froth^{T C} 19:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Agree with all above. --Janke | Talk 14:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delist, looks hideously oversharpened. I'm surprised it passed, with 7 supports (counting the nom) and 4 opposes, that's not usually enough for our standards. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 01:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delist - Ouch. I thought it looked great, but in full resolution it looks hideous. It looks like one of my amateur photoshops. Hbdragon88 06:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I went ahead and added your sheep picture to Wikipedia:What is a featured picture? as one of the examples of what not to nominate. Redquark 18:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I cropped the kid out then. I don't think the sheep has privacy rights. ~ trialsanderrors 19:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delisted Raven4x4x 05:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]