Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Mukka fishing

Mukka fishing [edit]

Edited by Alvinrune. (It still needs A LOT more editing to be a FP.

I took this photograph in December 2003 - it depicts two fishermen in their boat attempting to catch fresh fish for us to purchase. The palm trees illustrate how close we are to land, and of course the tropical nature of the surroundings. In high resolution you can make out that the fishermen are not very well dressed, illustrating how the lower classes of Indian society continue to make ends meet through primary economic methods such as fishing... especially in a coastal town such as Mangalore.

The picture was taken by me, has been released into the public domain, and appears on the Mangalore article, used in conjunction with the section to do with the local economy.

Nominate and support. - DJR (Talk) 22:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Great shot, horrible quality. :( --Dante Alighieri | Talk 02:23, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The quality, sharpness is not good. sorry, not FP quality. --vineeth

04:21, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment exposure time of 1/640 sec (0.0015625) is very less, esp when the natural light is dull . This should have been more. --vineeth

Oppose though i always like this kind of a-liitle-boat-floating-on-a-river pic--K.C. Tang 04:53, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Very nice scene, but the quality is inadequate for featured quality. Keep trying though! ; ) — Webdinger ^{BLAH | SZ} 05:00, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This might be improved by editing the original camera file (not a compressed jpg) to smaller size, while adjusting brightness/contrrast and correcting the slight tilt. --Janke | Talk 06:49, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Nice compo. everything else poor.--Deglr6328 13:39, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I don't know what picture you guys are looking at, but I think this one is high enough quality so that is is FP material. I may be a little on the fuzzy side, but I think its great quality. A better picture might be nice though. --J@red ^[T]/_[+] 16:57, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- TERRIBLE noise, don't you see it? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 20:15, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose you can see the excessive JPEG compression at thumbnail size. Full size it's bloody awful. chowells 00:11, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice scenery, but bad quality. Alvinrune ^TALK 02:31, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I uploaded another version, but it still needs a lot more editing to be considered a Featured Picture. Alvinrune ^TALK 02:31, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- There's no use in trying to improve a pic with that much noise & artifacts - in fact, your new edit looks more like a fresco on stucco than a photo... ;-) --Janke | Talk 06:18, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Yeah, the noise is terrible, especially on the trees. Alvinrune ^TALK 22:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The edit is no improvement at all! - Samsara (talk • contribs) 11:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose. The JPEG compression is absolutely horrible. Alr 02:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted ~ Veledan • Talk 22:56, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]