Wikipedia:Picture peer review/SLAC Large Detector
Obviously the workings of a particle collision detector cannot be worked out just by looking at it. However, this photo effectively captures its insanely evil nature. At least it made me want to read the article. I'm putting it up for peer review because I am concerned about the noise I see in the shadows and would appreciate tips for reducing it.
- Creator
- Justin Lebar
- Nominated by
- Wronkiew (talk) 06:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
- Comments
- I went ahead and created an edit with NR. Mfield (talk) 06:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
- Looks good, thanks! How did you do it? Wronkiew (talk) 06:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
- No problem, in this case using Nik Dfine. Mfield (talk) 06:48, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
- The NR makes it look somewhat soft though, not sure if it would make it through FPC. Would a downsample help? Fletcher (talk) 04:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
- No, there is detail that would be lost by any degree of downsampling enough to correct any softness. Downsampling is never the answer for improving apparent sharpness, if the image is felt to be too soft then the way to fix it is with selective sharpening. (Sorry if that sounds a bit harsh, but its a bugbear that downsampling is too often incorrectly suggested as a fix for softness). What I do note is that the original is kind of artifacty from the camera NR/JPEG engine and sharpening will probably only make those artifacts worse. Mfield (talk) 05:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
- The NR makes it look somewhat soft though, not sure if it would make it through FPC. Would a downsample help? Fletcher (talk) 04:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
- No problem, in this case using Nik Dfine. Mfield (talk) 06:48, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
- Looks good, thanks! How did you do it? Wronkiew (talk) 06:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
- Seconder