Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Ladder to heaven

Ladder to heaven edit

Modern sculpture "Ladders to Heaven"

"Ladders to Heaven" by Józef Szajna in the Centre of Polish Sculpture in Orońsko, Poland. Photo by SylwiaS. Quite stunning, I think.

Nominate and support. - Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 01:54, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support it's a great pic and would surely be a great addition to the article on the artist. Halibu tt 09:30, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Very grainy at full resolution. —Cryptic (talk) 02:50, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
( + ) Support On condition that somebody (possibly me) lowers the res, despeckles, adjusts contrast and tries to make the wires less obtrusive. —Vanderdecken^∫ξφ 19:17, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- That would be great if you could do that. Thank you--SylwiaS 04:53, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Looks good as a thumb but is less impressive when enlarged. ~~As well, the full-scale image is too small by current standards.~~ Denni ☯ 21:16, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Out of couriosity: the full scale is 1400x2400 (or similar) - are you sure it is 'too small'? What is the accepted size then?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 00:42, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
( − ) Oppose too much noise even when resized --Fir0002 08:32, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unless something can be done to grain and white dust specks in the full-size image. Otherwise, nice picture. --Janke | Talk 13:30, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I still haven't got round to fixing that. I'll try as hard as I can to get it done tonight. Homework takes so much time! Also, would anyone grumble if I removed the wires? Expect it under this comment tonight. —Vanderdecken^∫ξφ 10:58, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- There. New version. You may be pleased to know that the new one is ~200k, with the old one at 2.5Mb. If you like it better, vote. If you don't like it, vote. Have fun. —Vanderdecken^∫ξφ 19:33, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh yes, and that changes my vote to a ( + ) Support as well. For the second. —Vanderdecken^∫ξφ 19:37, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
OH NO! After removal of the cables, there are horrible "eraser marks" left in the sky. Still grainy, too, even in the smaller size. Selective de-speckling of the sky (of the original) would be in order. Strong oppose of version 2. --Janke | Talk 09:47, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Personally I can't see any eraser marks at full size, but okay. Tell me where they are and I'll try to correct them. And I think a certain graininess adds to it, but when someone tells me how to selectively despeckle the sky in Photoshop CS, I'll do it. —Vanderdecken^∫ξφ 10:25, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - OK, there are two very strong eraser marks just above the trees to the left of the "ladder", looking like (weak) spotlight beams. Then, there are two weaker marks going diagonally over the clouds in the middle of the picture. To "selectively" de-speckle, you need to make a soft-edged selection that contains the area to be worked on, but nothing else. --Janke | Talk 13:57, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - Right, got you. I'll try to rectify 'em. —Vanderdecken^∫ξφ 18:08, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - Okay, here we go. This time is my last. I like this picture, but this is the last time I clean it up. It's starting to annoy me now. Any more cleaning needed, and someone else will have to do it. —Vanderdecken^∫ξφ 19:26, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
( + ) Support either version but would prefer to have the image on commons. Also, I don't quite get why hi res is bad thing. --Lysy ^(talk) 19:30, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- - When I look where the wires used to be I can still see erase marks if I try to. Besides which I like the coloring scheme better on the first image.-- --(User | Talk | Contribs) 22:29, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Quite nice as a thumbnail, but I'm less than impressed with the full sized version. Too grainy. Enochlau 15:34, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Impressive colours/scene but unimpressive quality photograph unfortunately. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 21:31, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not promoted Broken S 02:46, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to thank you all for your kind comments, both the support and the opposite ones. It was a real pleasure to read them. I must also say that I am particularly touched with Vanderdecken’s efforts to improve the picture. I hope I’ll be able to contribute better images to Wiki in future.--SylwiaS 11:42, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]