Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Schloss-Broich-2013-01.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:Schloss-Broich-2013-01.jpg, featured[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Mar 2013 at 11:32:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info Courtyard of "Schloss Broich" (Broich Castle) with entrance
created by Tuxyso - uploaded by Tuxyso - nominated by Tuxyso -- Tuxyso (talk) 11:32, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Tuxyso (talk) 11:32, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Good quality, nothing special in the composition (crop, shadows), and also see Carsten (ghost in the archway). --A.Savin 16:02, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Nice lighting. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:59, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
- Question Which part of Schloss Broich is this? Courtyard? JKadavoor Jee 08:37, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
- Info / Done I've uploaded a new version with removed ghost. IMHO the beautiful lightning and sky comes out better with this new version. @Jkadavoor: It is the courtyard as tagged. The photo you linked to shows Schloss Broich from the outside. If you go through the entrance from the outside photo you see the motive I've nominated here. (Courtyard = Schlossinnenhof) --Tuxyso (talk) 08:45, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
-
- Comment I don't like the stronger HDR effect, but that would be ok if not for the clipped whites in the clouds that you created now. The old sky was very nice imho. --Julian H. (talk/files) 11:51, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
- There are not clipped whites, sorry. Please look at the histogram. Another indicator that highlights are better managed in this new version: Please compare the top of the roof (at the very right side, at the "Blitzableiter"): In the old version some details were slightly burnt out, it is not the case in the new version. Additionaly the sky in the new version shows much more details than grey of the old version (which comes ofter from highlight correction). More clipped whites in the new version would be strange because I've added an underexposed (-4EV) for the new processing to bring out more details of the sky. --Tuxyso (talk) 12:08, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
- You're right, they are not white but grey, but they still look like clipped whites. And whether or not they are white doesn't really matter, they are bright and almost featureless areas with sharp edges, and that doesn't look good to me. Clouds don't have sharp edges. And the sky doesn't have this dark-blue-grey colour it has now, in this editing. --Julian H. (talk/files) 12:19, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
- I've used a polarizing filter. I have NOT pimped the sky. Look at the orignal (underexposed 4 EV) file. It's not my fault that the sky looks that way. I prefer a more blue sky. --Tuxyso (talk) 12:59, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not saying anything's your fault. HDR editing software always manipulates every part of the image heavily and with no respect to reality. That's just what it does, locally selective tone-mapping. I'm just saying the result of what this software does is, in my eyes, very far away from reality in a non-pleasing way. Just like the editing done by the software, this isn't absolute or provable, it's just subjective perception. It all comes down to: I like the old version better. Ymmv. --Julian H. (talk/files) 13:23, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
- I've used a polarizing filter. I have NOT pimped the sky. Look at the orignal (underexposed 4 EV) file. It's not my fault that the sky looks that way. I prefer a more blue sky. --Tuxyso (talk) 12:59, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
- You're right, they are not white but grey, but they still look like clipped whites. And whether or not they are white doesn't really matter, they are bright and almost featureless areas with sharp edges, and that doesn't look good to me. Clouds don't have sharp edges. And the sky doesn't have this dark-blue-grey colour it has now, in this editing. --Julian H. (talk/files) 12:19, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
- There are not clipped whites, sorry. Please look at the histogram. Another indicator that highlights are better managed in this new version: Please compare the top of the roof (at the very right side, at the "Blitzableiter"): In the old version some details were slightly burnt out, it is not the case in the new version. Additionaly the sky in the new version shows much more details than grey of the old version (which comes ofter from highlight correction). More clipped whites in the new version would be strange because I've added an underexposed (-4EV) for the new processing to bring out more details of the sky. --Tuxyso (talk) 12:08, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
- Comment I don't like the stronger HDR effect, but that would be ok if not for the clipped whites in the clouds that you created now. The old sky was very nice imho. --Julian H. (talk/files) 11:51, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Alternative[edit]
- Info After the review of Julian (and others in a German DSLR forum) I've created an alternative without ghost and (hopefully) better and smoother sky (in den previous version there were some halos at the building and a darker area between clouds). I hope it is OK to put this alternative?! --Tuxyso (talk) 21:46, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support I like this very much. --Julian H. (talk/files) 07:24, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Better and less artificial-looking than the original. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:44, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support JKadavoor Jee 10:23, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
- weak Oppose Better than the original nomination, not doubt, but the lighting is not really outstanding and the missing wow cannot compensate it, sorry Poco a poco (talk) 16:10, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comment. After your (and other comments) it is clear that the alternative version is better. What's the best way now? Should I withdraw the original nomination? --Tuxyso (talk) 16:38, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Tuxyso (talk) 08:20, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Pudelek (talk) 14:58, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- Info Frank Schulenburg made slight (but very good) local adjustments. In order to avoid a further alternative here I've overwritten my photo with his version (with his his approval of course). If one thinks that is a problem please tell me and I will revert. --Tuxyso (talk) 17:56, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Nice shot :-) --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 01:02, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
- Support Jacopo Werther iγ∂ψ=mψ 14:27, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose This alternative is no doubt a lot better then the first one. But I lack something to make the photo interesting. A wider shot or something happening in the scene could maybe have helped? - Averater (talk) 09:12, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
- Comment I like this one better: File:Schloss-Broich-2013-03.jpg - Averater (talk) 09:15, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
- Feel free no nominate it :) My intention was not to nominate two motives for FP of a similiar object nearly at the same time - so I had to decide. One remark to your comment "But I lack something to make the photo interesting." - IMHO it is a bit inconsistent that you vote with "Pro" for IMHO a quite ordinary church with average light and mood above (yes, one sees the surrondings, but is that a reason for FP?) and vote here with "Contra" (not with neutral) for an important castle with interesting light. I think the lightning of the castle is intersting, because the left side in golden sun light, the right side in shadow but with all details visible due to HDR usage. I do not challenge your assesment, nonetheless for me it is not really understandable.
- BTW: I have another photo (not uploaded) with a wedding horse buggy on the courtyard. I hesitate to upload it becasue the light is not that good and the encyclopedic value questionable. --Tuxyso (talk) 16:07, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
- These matters are by nature subjective and what differs between the church and this is that that kind of photo is one I'd rather have on my wall than this. But obviously that is my personal opinion and I don't think there is anything wrong with your photo. - Averater (talk) 21:30, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for your clarification. And for sure: Assessing FP candidatures is ofter a very subjective matter (also my comment to your review). --Tuxyso (talk) 22:44, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
- These matters are by nature subjective and what differs between the church and this is that that kind of photo is one I'd rather have on my wall than this. But obviously that is my personal opinion and I don't think there is anything wrong with your photo. - Averater (talk) 21:30, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
- Feel free no nominate it :) My intention was not to nominate two motives for FP of a similiar object nearly at the same time - so I had to decide. One remark to your comment "But I lack something to make the photo interesting." - IMHO it is a bit inconsistent that you vote with "Pro" for IMHO a quite ordinary church with average light and mood above (yes, one sees the surrondings, but is that a reason for FP?) and vote here with "Contra" (not with neutral) for an important castle with interesting light. I think the lightning of the castle is intersting, because the left side in golden sun light, the right side in shadow but with all details visible due to HDR usage. I do not challenge your assesment, nonetheless for me it is not really understandable.
- Support --Rjcastillo (talk) 02:18, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
- Support imho FP--Steinsplitter (talk) 21:57, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture
The chosen alternative is: File:Schloss-Broich-2013-01-Alternative.jpg