Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Old Royal Naval College 2017-08-06.jpg

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

File:Old Royal Naval College 2017-08-06.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Nov 2017 at 21:24:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Old Royal Naval College
The Photographer, I'll see if I can eliminate them tomorrow. Is it just the two cyclists? If I can't remove them, I think they are far enough apart to be not easy to spot except to us eagle-eyed reviewers. -- Colin (talk) 23:09, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Photographer, I have removed the repeated cyclists. Also managed to improve the Union Jack in the centre of the picture. -- Colin (talk) 16:42, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for fix it, There are another severals pixels problem without a real importance. Btw, you are the only one eagle-eyed reviewer. --The Photographer 23:26, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Yann (talk) 23:45, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 00:24, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support - Looks good to me. I don't notice a problem with people, but I'm sure it'll be dealt with. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:38, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support It would be much prettier if the building was in the sun, but this still passes the bar IMO -- Thennicke (talk) 03:28, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thennicke agree, however the buildings face north so are never in full sun. You end up with an image like this or this where a portion is in deep shadow. A photo taken from the hill like this would get the full sun from the other side. Btw, here are the buildings from the air -- it is a much more three-dimensional scene than it appears. -- Colin (talk) 16:42, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for the context. I think I'd still prefer the early morning light with the diagonal shadows - the soft yellow glow is oh-so-pretty, and the asymmetrical lighting doesn't faze me. And with buildings such as these you always have the option of getting up early and doing what Julian did in this image, where the sun is rising from behind the building but the facades are still getting plenty of reflected light from the bright sky. I do think that this image has about the worst lighting possible for a building - no offence intended there at all - it is well processed though, and I judge on execution more than on subject/lighting, so still FP to me -- Thennicke (talk) 02:00, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thennicke agree, and if this was an ordinary building at ordinary resolution, then just a QI -- there's nothing magical about the light here. At least it lights evenly for educational purpose, rather than having some of the building hidden in shadow. I do think that strong side light would probably provoke a lot of opposes with complaints that too much of the building was in shadow, unless one artificially pulled up the shadows strongly. The light in Julian's photo is very nice. -- Colin (talk) 08:48, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • Sorry for elaborating on this point but another thought I had - you could also do such an image on an overcast day, such as in this image. Then you avoid this ugly dynamic range with the bright sky in the background and the dark stuff in the foreground, because everything is evenly-lit and uniform. I think we tend to forget that overcast days can actually produce really great architectural (and other) images, and that a white sky is not always a problem - sometimes that's the way it actually looks -- Thennicke (talk) 13:05, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thennicke, no problem. It is good to think about how to improve picture-taking. Looking at our FP exterior architecture photos, of the many dozens of images, I can count the ones taken on overcast days on one hand. That's quite an exceptional example there, where the unusual geometric shape suits the soft lighting, and the exterior is not grey stone, but dark glossy surfaces that work well against a plain sky. Overcast sky is not unusual in the UK and can be really bright to the point of needing HDR to avoid it simply blowing to white, or really dark where one needs to artificially raise the exposure or else the image looks too dull to be enjoyable. You won't avoid "bright sky; dark foreground" unless the sky is actually not evenly lit. For example, dark rainclouds behind the subject and clear sun low behind the photographer always generates a dramatic image. People just don't tend to like white or light-grey skies, and I think if this was a plain grey sky, it would be opposed for it. Leaving the sky aside here, the actual subject is lit via clouds, as it would on an overcast day, so is softly lit, just nothing exciting. That has the benefit of not needing any careful exposure handling, lifted shadows or reduced highlights. This is "the way it actually looks", but that's not really an argument for generating the "wow" for FP vs the thousands of QIs taken on overcast days. Btw, "Capturing Light" by Michael Freeman is a great book on different sorts of light. -- Colin (talk) 14:10, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How general composition light rule the background need have a different contrast level than the foreground, however, I understand the Thennicke comment, the sky look  Overexposed , maybe you could fix it using lightroom. --The Photographer 18:58, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 15 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /PumpkinSky talk 01:16, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture#United Kingdom
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Old_Royal_Naval_College_2017-08-06.jpg&oldid=267397352"