Wikipedia:Picture peer review/Okefenokee

Noise reduction, 1.5 degree CW rotation, other minor touchups

This image captures the essence of the Okefenokee Swamp. It currently appears in Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge, and is a public domain image from the US Fish and Wildlife Service.

Comments:

That's really a lovely photo, and illustrates the "swamp" concept brilliantly. However, the image is very noisy - try using a noise filter in photoshop or similar, or maybe someone can help you? I would also straighten it, it's significantly tilted to the left. Those two problems fixed, I would support it. Stevage 21:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This one's an 'almost' for me. I agree that it's too noisy, and tilted, both of which can be corrected. However, I'm not sure that it will have that "something special" even after the obvious problems are addressed -- I need to see it post-edit. I'm willing to work on this image a bit, but won't be able to do it until this evening (East coast U.S., about 9-10 hours from now). -- moondigger 12:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd appreciate any help you could offer. I've never been very good at image processing... ClarkBHM 13:53, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I'll give it a whirl this evening. -- moondigger 15:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I almost forgot about it. Here's a 3 minute edit. The biggest improvement is visible at full resolution -- the noise is almost completely eliminated. The tilt was hard to judge because not all of the tree trunks are vertical, but I think 1.5 degrees clockwise was about right. I don't think the edit is quite up to FP standards, in particular because the composition is still lacking somewhat.

By the way, the assigned color profile (for the original image) is not web standard. For folks with web browsers that obey profile tags (e.g., Safari), these images should look almost identical, with the original being slightly more accurate. For those with browsers that don't know what to do with profile tags (e.g., Internet Explorer), the images will look quite different in terms of color balance, with my edit being far more accurate. The reasons for this are a bit complicated, but in the end it makes more sense to use the web standard profile for web images, even though the color profile used for the original image is slightly more accurate than the web profile for programs that can properly display it. --moondigger 03:55, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting...learning something everyday...both images seem decent and I am unsure which I prefer.--MONGO 09:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would support edit 1! What a pretty picture:) Cab02 18:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder: