Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Passion Vine NBG LR.jpg

File:Passion Vine NBG LR.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jul 2017 at 03:08:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Passion Vine NBG LR.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Passion Vine NBG LR.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family_:_Passifloraceae
• All by me. -- PumpkinSky talk 03:08, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- PumpkinSky talk 03:08, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Daphne Lantier 03:16, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:52, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support a centered square might be even better --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:13, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support ...but then you'd cut out that nice little climber twirly thingy (whatever that is called in bothanicalese). --cart-Talk 07:46, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment The "nice little climber twirly thingy" is why I made this particular crop. User:W.carter, it's called a tendril. PumpkinSky talk 09:55, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:25, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- Pofka (talk) 11:51, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Oppose It a great subject and the photo you took is fine, but woa, this is not reality. There's far too much contrast, the leaves just wrong colour and I'm not seeing fine texture anywhere. I've seen plastic flowers that look more convincing than this :-). Trust me this is my reaction before I look at the EXIF to see what you did. We're a conservative bunch on Commons FP.} I'd support a much more conservative processing of this flower. BTW do you know the cultivar here? -- Colin (talk) 12:25, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Some suggestions for order of processing

The tone curve here is "Medium Contrast". For most of my images I use Linear and adjust the contrast using the other controls. Sometimes Medium Contrast is worth a try. I wouldn't use it as standard. Be aware though that if you do use it, the scene already starts off with contrast so the Clarity is just adding more. Set the exposure so that the midtones look right. Adjust the global contrast if required (I rarely reduce it unless an HDR scene and am unlikely to increase it beyond +25, and often untouched). In this image you have't altered either, which might be fine if the original shot was exposed correctly. Adjust the highlights and shadows somewhat if required to bring in highlight and shadow detail. Rarely need to go above +/- 50 here other than for an extreme high dynamic scene or an HDR image. In my experience, these are the main controls for removing the warnings of blown hightlights or shadow crushed to black. In this scene, there shouldn't have been any of either to begin with. Then adjust the white and black if required to stretch the histogram towards but not reaching clipping/crushing -- though not all subjects benefit from this and a low key or high key image will naturally sit towards one end of the histogram or the other. Here I see Highlights -79, Shadows +19, Whites -100, Blacks -12. I'd say that the highlights and whites settings are very extreme. Some images benefit from some added Clarity, particularly if the local contrast is low due to atmospheric effects or the shortcomings of a telephoto lens. For a natural close image like this consider 0..25 perhaps. Sometimes it helps to come back to the image after a break and you reconsider it with fresh eyes. A Clarity setting of +69 is radioactive. For black&white photography, such extreme local contrast can have an artistic effect, but for colour and for natural scenes or for recording artwork, that's far too high. The sharpening settings are complex and Lightroom does come with two useful presents for Landscape and Portraits, which are worth a try. Getting this right needs a book chapter but I think masking of +93 seems odd as that is practically turning sharpening off. Your image is only ISO 200 so will barely need any NR. If you are careful to not oversharpen and don't have to lift shadows much, it might not need any at all. The level here is 40 which is the sort of desperate "turn it to waxy plastic" setting one might use on an ISO 3200 image. If you do feel it necessary, try 10 and rarely will you need to go above 25. You shouldn't have to touch the colour NR at all, unless dealing with super high ISO. Avoid the colour controls alone for now. I see "Blue Saturation +12". On nearly all my colour photos, these are not necessary to adjust. Certainly with natural outdoor light there is little excuse to alter. Your camera should do a reasonable job with the white temperature/tint, and Lightroom has its own "auto" setting which sometimes is worth considering, but this is the main white balance is the main control you may need to tweak a little at times. The camera profile here is "Camera Landscape". This is Adobe's attempt at emulating your Nikon's "Landscape" profile. You will find that choosing one of these profiles makes quite drastic changes to the colours and tone and certainly shouldn't be the last setting you alter. FWIW, I have mine on "Camera Standard" and don't change it. This is Adobe's emulation of my Sony's standard profile, and I find it a little more interesting than "Adobe Standard" which is their extremely neutral profile. I can't really think that "Landscape" is appropriate for flowers, but don't know what Nikon's profile does. I suggest you stick with either of the two standard profiles you like best and leave that alone. Avoid "Vivid" unless you join 500px. Avoid applying circular gradient filters or vignettes unless trying to solve a problem or are going for a very arty photo. For most "documentary photography" like this flower, they aren't helpful or required. Of course, everyone does it differently and there is always more than one way and matters of taste. I recommend Jeff Schewe's The Digital Negative book. -- Colin (talk) 12:25, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

• • Colin, since you offered these processing tips I've tried to incorporate them. I have my camera take a RAW and JPG and the version I just uploaded looks very much like the JPG from the camera. I guess I should do that more often. I've watched or read many people's ideas on processing and they vary widely. Thanks for the tips. PumpkinSky talk 13:09, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
    • At the Botanical Garden I take a photo of the info plaques they have for the for the plants I take photos of. The plaque for this one had the Latin name, common name, and that it was host to two types of butterfly: Variegated Fritillary and Gulf Fritillary. So, I don't know the cultivar.PumpkinSky talk 13:14, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
      •  Comment Just noting that I've further improved this image with more input from Colin. PumpkinSky talk 00:21, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:03, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Cvmontuy (talk) 15:43, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- Vengolis (talk) 02:18, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Llez (talk) 10:32, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support - I don't love all of the background, but I totally love the overall arabesque and the curvy flower. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:24, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Jee 05:44, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants