Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Petroglyphs transfer.jpg

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

File:Petroglyphs transfer.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 18 Jun 2009 at 23:18:35
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  •  Info created, uploaded and nominated by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 23:18, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 23:18, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Overexposed. Maybe you could do some edits to RAW-file? —kallerna™ 15:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Question Overexposed where? The cloth is white and under sunlight, yet the important parts are within the tonal range, with perhaps very small sections blocked, which is acceptable, considering their placement in zones XIII to X on a gray scale. The shadow areas and dark subjects have acceptable detail (zone II and III), so considering the short dynamic range of digital photography, and the tonal range represented, as well as the texture range, including highlights and shadows, exposure is pretty good. You may want to check the histogram, adjust your monitor and a read a little bit of information on zone system photography. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose slightly overexposed (edges of cloth), not a big fan of the motion blur, and composition is a bit lacking. Each of these separately would not make me oppose, but taken as a whole they do. --ianaré (talk) 13:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Comment This picture illustrates a process of recreating petroglyphs. How many times have you seen that? It is an illustrative image first of all. Now, technically, as I said above, knowledge of zone system gives access to evaluation parameters in terms of the capacity of the medium (digital photography) to represent in its corresponding zone of the gray scale the different luminosities of the subjects of the image. With this in mind, skin tones are correctly represented in zone VI, where it belongs in a normal scale. That means that exposure is correct in terms of original luminosity values with a normal gray scale; the white cloth is correctly represented in zones VIII to X, zone X being the base of the medium, with no texture, but well represented within the dynamic range where you can perceive changes in tonality. The gray scale is slightly modified with photoshop, a normal procedure based on traditional dark room practices. When I analize an image for exposure, I identify a subject with a known corresponding value in the gray scale, and considering the light source and where the other elements fall within the gray scale, I then determine if the scale is normal, expanded or contracted in order to accomodate a visually appealing gray scale, and at the same time, I can determine if the gray scale can be expanded, contracted or moved up or down. Only then can exposure can be judged somewhat objectively. To say that the edges of the white cloth is over-exposed means nothing, for those parts are represented in its corresponding zone. If exposure is manipulated so that those edges fall below zone IX, which is where the tonal range starts, then everything else would be bumped to lower light values, and then we would have true exposure errors, or at least, a modified gray scale with objects outside their natural, corresponding equivalent in gray. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 18:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Believe it or not I have seen that method for transcribing petroglyphs, except done in black. I am certainly not opposing on 'no interest'. I'll admit I've never used the exposure zones method. I'm not claiming to be a master, but I usually just try to make sure the histogram looks OK on the camera. If as whole the image is too dark or light, then I adjust using photoshop. To me those edges are definitely overexposed, in the sense that no adjustment will bring out any detail in them. I also feel that if the shutter speed had been higher, there would be less motion blur and overexposure. --ianaré (talk) 21:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment... And that would have created a wrong exposure, by lowering the value of the highlights, the rest of the tonal values would have been pushed into darker zones, losing the real gray scale value of the image. You would sacrifice 99.9% of true exposure for nothing. Nowhere in the history of photography says that everything must be within the tonal or texture range. The histogram is a great tool, specially for zone system visualization, but to know where to place the curve is the real challenge. Anyway, I disagree with your opinion about the significance of a very, very minor area, of white subject in direct sunlight. Of course a few pixels will be completely white, almost as specular reflexions. And as I said, given the luminosity range and the lighting conditions, exposure is pretty, pretty good. Any Zonie will telll you that. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 22:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 11:32, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Petroglyphs_transfer.jpg&oldid=22518125"