Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ruhrtalbruecke-Sonnenuntergang.jpg

File:Ruhrtalbruecke-Sonnenuntergang.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Nov 2012 at 09:45:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Ruhrtalbruecke-Sonnenuntergang.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ruhrtalbruecke-Sonnenuntergang.jpg

•  Info created by Tuxyso - uploaded by Tuxyso - nominated by Tuxyso -- Tuxyso (talk) 09:45, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
•  Support I like it. -- -donald- (talk) 11:10, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
•  Support Yesss --Llorenzi (talk) 12:11, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
•  Weak support I have mixed feelings about HDR and I think this one is on the edge of appearing unrealistic or overprocessed. On the other hand it has very nice colours, detail level, mood, and a good composition, so I surrender. Could you indicate in the {{Panorama}} the software used for the HDR stitch? --Slaunger (talk) 20:09, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I am by the way intrigued by the fact that I cannot see any stitching errors in the grass in the foreground. It is usually very hard to avoid parallax errors in the extreme foreground. Did you use a special pano-head? On the other hand, the stitching method used in some recent stitching software is so smart that it can zig-zag in between the individual straws and make a seam, which is very hard to see. --Slaunger (talk) 20:14, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

     Info I've added the information regarding software and # of pics to {{Panorama}}. The shootig conditions were not optimal. I stopped spontaneously at the road (because of the great sky formation and sunset) and had only a simple tripid (no pano-head). I even had no remote-control with me and pressed the trigger by hand. The seven photos were prepared with Lightroom. (noise reduction, WB, CA). I auto-aligned the source photos with Photomatix 4 and used the Detail Enhancer method with medium light effect. In the end I postprocessed the jpg output from Photomatix again with LR (noise reduction, sharpening, shadow-highlight correction).
    To your other points: The use (and usefullness) of HDR is ambivalent and highly debated. I personally prefer the use of HDR in situations with extreme dynamic ranges. E.g. the direct sunlight here and the bottom side of the bridge (completely in shadow) blows the DR of every camera thus I used HDR. I always try to let my HDRs looking naturally and go beyond the limitations of the camera sensor. Thanks for your interest and (weak) support. --Tuxyso (talk) 22:59, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

•  Support Forgotten: I also like the photo :) --Tuxyso (talk) 23:12, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
•  Support -- Penyulap ☏ 09:29, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
•  Support -- Аркадий Зарубин (talk) 14:06, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
•  Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 14:40, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
•  Support --Stas1995 (talk) 16:37, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
•  Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 16:43, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
•  Support --Ivar (talk) 18:01, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
•  Support Sunlight occulted by cirrus or other thin clouds is about the one place I could think of where HDR might actually help. It does here. Daniel Case (talk) 06:09, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
•  Support The HDR effect here is obvious but still eye-pleasing. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:24, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
•  Neutral a bit overprocessed HDR, but not enought to really oppose --PierreSelim (talk) 13:59, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
•  Support -- JDP90 (talk) 14:47, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
•  Support Wow! Michael Barera (talk) 20:54, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
•  Neutral Great composition and lighting/shadows but partially thank to much digital processing Poco a poco
  •  Info To the skeptics of HDR: On [1] you find a very similiar sunset photo of the same object. Impossible to carve out the interesting structure of the bottom side of the bridge. As you can see on this photo the worth seeing strucutre of bottom side is completely shadowed independently of the time of the day. In this case here I would even go so far that HDR is more natural than any other shooting technique because our eyes can master both: the beautiful sunset and the structure of the bridge by rapidly alternating between bright and dark areas. HDR (more precisly the final tonemaping) just merges this mechanism into one photo. --Tuxyso (talk) 02:44, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

(talk) 21:49, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

•  Support--Kürbis (A mode✔) 22:27, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
•  Support --Avenue (talk) 11:25, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose I like good HDR images, but this unnatural example hast just an end in itself. To show a nice view of this bridge the time was definitely chosen wrong. We have a dramatic sky with an average good bridge photography. Sorry, but the EV is too low in my opinion and the artistic mood too posed. --Wladyslaw (talk) 22:29, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose Same as Wladyslaw.--Jebulon (talk) 12:50, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

• Rare coincidence. JKadavoor Jee 16:54, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

• Not a coincidence. An agreement about a good and relevant review, IMO. I was to oppose too, but I did not have the good and precise words for that. Wladyslaw expressed here exactly my meaning.--Jebulon (talk) 23:56, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

•  Oppose Have to agree with Wladyslaw, sorry. Basically, I like the winter sunset atmosphere here. But the bridge itself does not find much expression. The eye-catcher here are rather the sky and the sun, which actually should not have been so. A better exposure of the bridge is desirable. It's also the fact that the image resolution is rather on the poor side. - A.Savin 19:43, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I am open minded to criticism and I know that HDR is controversal, but your statement "image resolution is rather on the poor side" is absurdity, sorry. The photo has a resolution of 5,6 megapixel! It was my decision the downsample in order to minimize noise here. I think LR can do it much better than the image rendering of Commons. --Tuxyso (talk) 20:07, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Well, looking at some other FP's of comparable motives I don't think it's an absurd requirement. Even more, it's not that essential and in case of some exceptionally good images voters may overlook an even lower number of pixels. Here, however, we also have some other technical issues, given the fact that even compact cameras of today have far more than 10 MP it's also a point, albeit just one of several ones. - A.Savin 20:33, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
      • I just answered back to your statement regarding the resolution. Like or dislike of HDR and of the composition I've choosen here is a subjective matter and I accept the negative assesments to this aspect(s). If 5,6 Mpx are problematic I can upload the photo in full resolution. Compared to the other nominated photos, 5.6 Mpx is a good average and not "rather on the poor side". Please do not take resolution as justification for your reservations on HDR. --Tuxyso (talk) 22:07, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
        • Seems you've misunderstood something, I don't use arguments as "justification" for something... Whatever, if you prefer me not to utter *my* arguments on your FPC's, just throw me a line, and I will vote without any comment in the future (even when opposing). - A.Savin 23:05, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
        • I am happy with your in-detail comments (also in future). I think circumstantial comments are beneficial to everyone. Thus keep on commenting that way. --Tuxyso (talk) 05:51, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose A pretty picture to look at, but unrealistic enough for me to oppose --Dey.sandip (talk) 13:34, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose: Very unrealistic editing, extreme halos on the piers. The latter is the biggest problem for me. --Julian H. (talk/files) 10:39, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
•  Info My initial plan was to shut up until the vote if finished, but some statements are hair-raising to me:
  • Julian H.: "Extreme halos" - what is extreme? Extrem enough that up to now no one despite of you has realiszed it? We are here at FP. As I initially wrote: The shootings conditions were not optimal, the formation of the sky and the sunset were very unique and led to this beautiful result (in my eyes). Slight halos should be correctable via image editing.
  • To the naturalists / realists (Wladyslaw, Jebulon, Dey.sandip, Julian H.): I cannot follow your argumentation. What is real? Are the NASA images shown here real? No! Are the beautiful FP-panoramas real? No, no one can look 360° around. Photography is always communication between photographer and viewer (and never) reality. The resulting photo was the way I've seen the bridge and the beautiful sunset, nothing more and nothing less.
  • Bridge photographer (Wladyslaw, Savin): I agree with you that there might be better perspectives for pure bridge photography. But as the german title "Bridge of valley of the Ruhr with sunset" indicated the motive here is the symbios between sunset and bridge architecture. From my view a selected the best shooting position, probably you can come to Germany and find a better one :)
  • Wladyslaw: With all respect, but your comment "I like good HDR images, but this unnatural example [...]" annoys me much. I've seen and processed a lot of HDRs and I am sure that mine is for sure not a bad one - in contrary. Be so kind and have a look at the English wikipedia entry [HDR] to see bad and overprocessed HDRs. --Tuxyso (talk) 14:41, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
    • I didn't say it's bad (technical the image isn't bad for sure), I have said it's unrealistic and dramatic and therefore it looks posed. That's a difference. --Wladyslaw (talk) 16:42, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

• These halos would indeed be easily correctable with the original material, if the editing software supports this. "Extreme" means that they result in a darkening of the edges of the pier compared to the center (they should be the same colour) by about 30% (at least it looks like that). Why others didn't notice that or had no problem with it is none of my business, the point of a democratic vote is that everybody can vote according to his impression and standards. And for me, these halos are too strong. It might also be that others noticed it but didn't mention it.
• I completely agree if you say that photography is never 100% real and doesn't have to be. But if my immediate impression upon looking at the image is "this looks very wrong", then this is a problem for me. In other conditions, it might not be. And "the shooting conditions were not optimal" doesn't change the quality of the image or the editing. This isn't a vote about your abilities as a photographer, so please don't feel defensive about this. I'm trying to be objective, as far as that's possible when talking about photography, and my impression is that this shouldn't be a FP. Others think it should be, and that's perfectly fine. --Julian H. (talk/files) 16:14, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

•  Support -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 08:48, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 5 oppose, 2 neutral → featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 22:12, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture