Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Dülmen, Börnste, Waldweg -- 2015 -- 4649.jpg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

File:Dülmen, Börnste, Waldweg -- 2015 -- 4649.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Nov 2015 at 16:14:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Autumn in the hamlet Börnste, Krichspiel, Dülmen, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany

* Oppose Also think some bottom part which is out of focus should be cropped. Composition feels unbalanced, I would use zoom in this one in portrait mode. The alternative has bottom in focus, but needs much higher EV. Idea is trees cover sideways so no bushes beyond, that's the case in long end zoom. --Mile (talk) 07:33, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative version[edit]

Alternative version
  •  Info-- I like your images Dietmar but I think also they're worth a little more work in post-prod, so let's pop-up these fall colors, trying to maintain that mystery mist, ok? Here's an alternative mine, balancing the colors again a bit out of the blue as well as several other enhancements in colors, levels, etc. Like Jebulon and Mile suggested above, I think too that the area of the road is too big, which points the eye to the bright area at the end of it. Cropping a bit of it focuses better the attention to the canopy. Sting (talk) 17:40, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment-- For what's about your alternative bellow, I think that you understand that you lost the interest of the mist in the trees. But most importantly, if you allow me: forget about that zoom, at least at 15mm, and if you can change it for a better one. It's optical quality at full size is terrible imo. ;-) Sting (talk) 17:40, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Best of all three. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:26, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --The Photographer (talk) 01:37, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Maybe the eye level is a bit too low. --Laitche (talk) 02:50, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment @Sting: Thanks for nomination this image. Please allow me a comment. Nominating a third image is more than confusing. Your derivate has an JPEG as origin, not the original image (RAW). IMO it's better to develop images from RAW. And yes, your image is more colorful. Whether it is balanced, is surely subjectively. I like the colors you've choosen. In order to be regarded as an alternative, in my opinion, all the processing steps from me would have to be carried out. I nominated my image as FP. If the result is, it isn't, so it is not FP. The derived image I do not consider as my picture. My image was just the basis. If I improve my image developed from RAW both images are very similar.
    Your other comment: IMO the lens isn't terrible. But the lens is currently in service. It must be adjusted. May there are better lenses but they are third party lenses (I did not prefer third party lenses) or Canon EF lenses - and much more expensive. Currently I don't extend my equipment. May be in the future - may be full frame.
    Thanks again for your assistance. I can learn from everyone's help. --XRay talk 07:05, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it's based on the jpeg (but worked on it at 16 bits), that's why it wasn't meant (for me) to be another nomination but more to show an alternative treatment.
Don't worry, I know well that very few of us can afford the replacement of a lens. I too still own one of those, even if it's tagged as an “L” one. I just avoid use it for critical work. Sting (talk)]
Thanks for the alternative treatment. But - sorry - it's not my nomination. Others will review this one. So IMO it should be nominated if the nomination period of original will be finished and the original image does not become FP. --XRay talk 16:47, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative[edit]

Separated as own nomination --XRay talk 04:49, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The alternative was withdrawn and will be nominated if this image did not become FP. --XRay talk 08:49, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 21:53, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Dülmen,_Börnste,_Waldweg_--_2015_--_4649.jpg&oldid=179972218"