Arge Bam

I think it's a well taken photo with a good quality which deserves to be FP in my opinion. It apears in Bam, Iran, Arg-é Bam, Iranian architecture articles and in wikimedia commons. I created the photo.

• Nominate and support. - Arad 18:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks in advance for your votes.

The building is currently destroyed by the 2003 earthquake and is pending for reconstruction. It was built some time before 500 BC. It's the largest adobe building in the world

• Oppose. Very blurry, and there appears to be a "halo" effect around the building (artsy, but not appropriate here). The composition is nice, as is the lighting, but the technical issues mentioned above are too large for the image to gain my support. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 18:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment but the halo is because of the Citadel's nature of refelcting the light. It's an adobe building. Arad 19:35, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. The other images on that page don't have problems with a halo so I'm inclined to think that it can be photographed without a halo. I find the halo annoyingly distracting and unnatural looking so I'll have to Oppose edit 1. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 12:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Observing the same blurriness as Pharaoh Hound, I've uploaded a 50% downsampled, sharpened, level-adjusted version as Edit 1. It's probably not the best edit possible, but it improves it a lot for me, and it's still over the minimum size (if people feel it's too close to the mark, I can see if I can do the same with a less severe downsample). TSP 19:00, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot, in my opinion, you improved it a lot. Greatly appreciated. if you could just make it a bit bigger (so it'll be 1000 X 1000 it'll be much better since some users don't like it under this). It's good anyway. Thanks again. Arad 19:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a play, but the main chunk of 'magic' seems to be in reducing the resolution by 50%; this means that every block of 4 pixels turns into 1 pixel, dramatically improving sharpness. Using any other ratio means that pixel values have to be interpolated, which re-introduces some blurriness. The size criterion, though, is for at least one dimension to be over 1000; so this should still be satisfactorily large.

What I did, for the record (all in Adobe Photoshop) was:

- Selected just the sky and did a three-pixel remove dust and scratches, to get rid of various errors (not sure whether they were dust on the lens, JPEG artefacting, or what, but the sky was pretty speckly in places).

- Resampled down by 50%, using bicubic resampling.

- Did an auto level adjustment (I always check the adjustments before applying and see if the default is what I really want, but I almost invariably find that it does better than I can).

- Applied a lightish unsharp mask across the whole thing (40%, 1 pixel, no threshold, I think).

TSP 22:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it is not sharp at 1000px then it's not meant to be. It's not sheer pixel size that counts, but size vs. sharpness. --Dschwen 12:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Edit 1. A beautiful picture of a noteworthy and now vanished building; fit to replace the fair use picture which currently heads its article. TSP 22:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The composition half sky half Bam is a bit suboptimal. When did you take the pic and what kind of camera did you use? In front of the gate a bit of a car can be seen, which looks very old. Also the whole picture has the feel of a toy model shot, and I cannot quite figure out why. --Dschwen 07:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if that is exactly a car, but the photo was taken a few months before the earthquake. The reason it looks like a toy, which I agree in a way, is that the building it self is well preserved for 3000 years and is an adobe building. it's easier to make a nicely formed adobe building than a stone one. About the car, maybe it's because people living there aren't as rich as those living in Tehran or other major cities. Thank you for your comment. Arad 12:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So what kind of camera did you use? --Dschwen 12:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you believe I don't remember? When I moved to Canada, I left many things behind. Sorry Arad 21:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. The other two pics in the article add more to it. (although quality and choice of format are worse) --Dschwen 12:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support It`s an amazing photo from a building that is not in a good shape anymore which makes it more rare and important. It's good quality and well taken. It`s a FP. I prefer Edit 1 QAZ 14:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTE: User's only 3 edits are to FPC nominations. howcheng {chat} 23:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Overexposed. howcheng {chat} 15:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I would use a bit of Photoshop to touch-up the picture for optimized contrast.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Zereshk (talk • contribs)
• Weak oppose. It's a really nice pic but there are just too many other issues (somewhat low-res, the car (or whatever it is) in the lower right) for me to support even though the structure is now gone. --Nebular110 17:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The edit 1 looks good and the building itself is very old. the car doesn't bother me non. The quality is good too. I think it qualifies as a FP. 66.36.155.198 21:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTE: Six of user's seven edits are to FPC nominations. howcheng {chat} 23:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I like the mix of the colors. I think the blue sky and Bam look good in this picture. And it represents the Persian Architecture too. Babayi 21:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

forgot to mention that both images are good. Edit 1 has a better contrast. Babayi 21:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • NOTE: User's only 6 edits are to FPC nominations. howcheng {chat} 23:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Blown highlights - looks like it has had a bit of Diffuse glow applied to it in Photoshop. --Fir0002 23:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

actually the first one is untouched and the edit 1 is just a bit sharpened and downsampled. Thank you for your vote Arad 12:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support it desreves Featured Picture--Pejman47 12:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Good pic for the article, but appearance of being overexposed detracts from its appeal as an FP. --jjron 06:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please Note: This is an ADOBE building. The natural look of the castle is bright not overexposed. Arad 13:47, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Due to quality. This photo is looking as if it was photographed through a window. The object might be a bright one in reality, yet this cannot be a reason for this odd, unsharp, unreal- and overexposed-looking caption. It is not at all pleasing to the eye. Mikeo 14:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what you mean from "looking as if it was photographed through a window". And "odd, unsharp, unreal" are not a factor for FP. thanks anyway for the vote. Arad 17:02, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Not least (although also for the reasons given by others above) because I'm a little concerned as to the provenance of this image. I'm pretty sure the object near the gate is a car, but it looks like a very old one indeed - my guess would be 1930s or earlier - even if this is a poor region, it still seems unlikely that you'd come across a vehicle that old in everyday use. Secondly, if you look at the original version uploaded to commons here, a moire pattern reminiscent of the methods used in printing books and magazines is evident in the dark areas. Thirdly, the overwhelming impression I get when looking at this and other images on Arad's page is that they were taken using an old camera and old processing methods, but by someone who knew how to operate that camera - although not up to normal FP standards of quality, they are pretty reasonable exposures (particularly the night-time ones) for what looks like fairly antique equipment. This seems out of sync with Arad's assertion that he "can't remember" what sort of camera he used - even though he only took the photo around 4 years ago. I don't wish to jump to conclusions, and I'll gladly apologise if Arad can prove he owns the copyright to these images, but I'm reserving the right to a little skepticism for the time being. --Yummifruitbat 20:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's an interesting point you've raised there - I've actually noticed that as well. --Fir0002 05:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's true, you've got A REALLY GOOD POINT. Intelligent one indeed. Yes, my camera was old. I liked it, actually it was my dad's. I left in Iran and now i bought a Digital camera. The photo's are mostly older than 5 years old. Then because my camera wasn't digital, I had to scan my images (quality will get reduced for sure). So I had to edit the scanned one for a better quality. As you said, the original version has noise, that's because of my "old" scanner I had. I'm not sure if the car everyone is talking about was a car or a "kiosk", you know, information and etc (because thrust me you see wierd things in Iran) or just a old car left there for some reason. It's not a region so poor to use such cars but sometimes you can see one or two maybe the owner like old cars. No one can be sure as we can't see the car for real. (If the photo is taken in 1930 then the image wouldn't be in color). It's possible some of the pictures I've uploaded on my name are taken by my father, which also gives all the rights of his works to public. I hope I've answered your questions. No offence was taken from your comment (I liked it actually). Thanks for the comment and even your oppose because you've taken your time to vote. Arad 14:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to mention because I travelled with my father and we took photos with same camera, i cannot tell you for sure which one of the images are mine or my father's. Arad 14:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing. I think I figured out what is the car. It's a Patrol (somthing like a Jeep) which has an old look but it isn't that old. It's for sure not the Godfather movie sort of car. Arad 14:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. It's overexposed and haloed. —Keenan Pepper 04:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I love it when my works become controversial. It's obvious not that this image's chance of being FP is low, but the discussion we had was great. Thanks again for your votes. Arad 14:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For those who want to know, the camera used, was probably Canon AE-1 lens mounted. Arad 18:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Both images suffer from clear distortions in the cloud and probably elsewhere too. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted. howcheng {chat} 22:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]