Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Behnam house.jpg

Heydar zade Home[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 Nov 2012 at 11:04:49 (UTC)

Reason: High Quality and Framing- Full of EV.
Articles in which this image appears: Haidarzadeh house
FP category for this image
Creator: the creator of the image, where possible using the format Jacopo188

Support as nominator --Alborzagros (talk) 11:04, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This appears to be a scan of a profesionally printed image, with the "noise" the result of a halftone or similar printing technique. As a result, regardless of image quality, I'd be very reluctant to promote such a picture without an OTRS ticket establishing its licence/ownership. But anyway, the image doesn't stand close scrutiny, especially the bad photoshopping on the floor. Colin°^Talk 12:50, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Wow, really noisy, and a peculiar blurred patch through the right side of the floor. Also, I share Colin's skepticism of the origins of this photo. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 14:02, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I'm not sure that it's necessarily the noise of a halftone or similar print scan. If you look at previous versions, the earlier high-res one seems to have more sedate noise, more in keeping with high ISO film. That makes a bit more sense, as the EXIF refers to a photo processing machine. Skepticism eased slightly, but still not really of sufficient technical quality. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 14:07, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Looking at the previous versions, the one immediately prior to current is at the same resolution, but is less noisy and without that hideous photoshop blur. Should we revert to that version? Chris857 (talk) 14:15, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'd say yes, but it wouldn't swing me around to a support. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 12:53, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose That noise is overwhelming. Dusty777 17:40, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Julia\^talk 08:03, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]