Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Kloster Paulinzella, Thüringen, 360x180, 170316, ako (1).jpg

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

File:Kloster Paulinzella, Thüringen, 360x180, 170316, ako (1).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Apr 2017 at 06:10:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Paulinzella abbey, Thuringia, Germany
  • @King of Hearts: Neither do I see any overexposure (except of course the two little windows in the wall on the right - the sun is directly behind them and what do you expect to see when you shoot straigt in the sun), nor can I find a "stitch line". The light conditions did not change between the frames. Please give me a hint. --Code (talk) 05:21, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've marked the overexposure as an image note; large parts of it are at 255 in one or more channels, and significant detail has been lost. The line is visible only in the 360 viewer, where the left edge connects to the right edge (of the flat image). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:55, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @King of Hearts: Well then, I've spent the last four hours working on a new version without any over- or underexposure. You can find the result here but I don't think it's very convincing. The new file has a perfect histogram but it looks grey, flat and not very appealing. So I'm not going to replace this "overexposed" version with the new version. I think in this case it's better to accept some brighter parts. A perfect histogram doesn't always make a perfect picture. Regarding the stitching line you saw it's obviously a problem with the panellum viewer. As you can see here the sky is created from a single frame so there definitely can't be any problem with differently exposed frames or changing light situations. Sorry, but all in all I don't see anything I should or even could improve here. --Code (talk) 10:50, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I, in fact, do think that the new version is superior. Yes, there is a little bit of HDR-ness to it, but it looks as natural as could possibly fit on my computer monitor. Not only is the overexposure fixed, but even the line in the sky is less visible. By the way, I think the line is real: I downloaded the original version, did a basic B&W conversion (to make luminosity values easier to compare), and opened it up in Photoshop. If you compare the two sides about 300-600 pixels from the top, the left edge has values 174-176, while the right edge has values 177-179. The 360 viewer is an accurate rendition of this difference, as you can see that it is darker on the right than on the left (left edge is on the right of the right edge when you join them together). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:59, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • So how do you explain the line if it goes straight through a single frame? The question is serious, I really would like to know it. I'd be happy to repair it if only I could but I simply don't know how. --Code (talk) 22:25, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Panorama software do all kinds of weird things when stitching/blending, so it's perfectly conceivable it lightened one side (after cutting it) to blend better. I also think the new version is an insult to reality, completely flat. Having said that why not just mask the problematic parts with a version where green/red are not clipped? Would also like to ask why are there white outlines everywhere around the bricks? Sharpening? -- KennyOMG (talk) 15:37, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @KennyOMG: Thanks for your feedback. It's kind of weird indeed. I already thought about masking the brighter parts but my photoshop skills are really bad and the equirectangular projection makes it somewhat difficult to properly retouch the details in the upper part of the picture. I don't have much time today, maybe I can give it another try tomorrow evening. --Code (talk) 05:58, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 13 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 17:01, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Kloster_Paulinzella,_Thüringen,_360x180,_170316,_ako_(1).jpg&oldid=239426620"