Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Still Pond, Isabella Plantation, Richmond Park, London, UK - Diliff.jpg

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

File:Still Pond, Isabella Plantation, Richmond Park, London, UK - Diliff.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 May 2015 at 11:43:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Isabella Plantation
  • Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural
  •  Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Diliff. Something a bit different from me. Well spring is here in England and just around the corner from where I live is Richmond Park, and within it, a little known but quite amazing garden called Isabella Plantation, which blooms with Azaleas and Rhododendrons in May. (Other photos taken on the same visit) -- Diliff (talk) 11:43, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- Diliff (talk) 11:43, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Amazing colours. Yann (talk) 11:55, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I know, they are quite stunning. Before anyone asks, I haven't bumped up the saturation. In fact, I've had decrease the saturation slightly to get a bit more definition in the flowers. Diliff (talk) 12:00, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support I know these plants actually do have such colours while blooming. :) --Tremonist (talk) 12:27, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Diliff, I think that you should crop as the note, nothing interesting at the bottom and it let to a weaker photo. If you crop, this could give the sensation of a bigger slop... -- RTA 16:49, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree, I think it's much weaker without the bottom of the pond, the tree is cut off and it loses a sense of perspective. But that's just my opinion. Diliff (talk) 16:57, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Without a doubt Diliff creates very good quality images, however, a good photograph is more than just a pretty picture. In this case, the execution is flawless, but I fail to see the relevenace of this image for FP. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 17:30, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • What? No relevance? I don't understand how you could reach that conclusion. How is this image different to any other landscape image? It illustrates the location. Look images in the category and tell me what is so different about this image. Diliff (talk) 17:59, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Other than being a nice picture of a pond, what is there to merit encyclopedic value? Are the flowers in danger of extinction? The trees? Is it hard to get to? Are the flowers one-of-a-kind? What does it illustrate? What does it teach? There must be a zillion look alike ponds in the world. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 23:16, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Since you seem to love rules, could you point to a rule that says it has to be rare or difficult to reach in order to be a FP? Regardless of whether there are a zillion look-alike ponds in the world or not (I doubt it anyway, and how many of them do we have FP-quality images for?), rarity has never been a requirement. Have a look at the other images in the Places/Natural category and tell me if all the others are rare and unique. Most are simply 'nice'. Diliff (talk) 23:30, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • There are universal guideliness for photographic evaluations, and specific guidelines according to the applications of the photograph. This photograph would not do well in a children photography contest, for example, since it would be outside the contest context. Commons basically is a repository for encyclopedic images, if we were to follow the logic of Wikipedia, which promotes itself as a free enciclopedia. So I assume that the criteria then would be for Commons to host largely images of encyclopedic value, and that in itself focuses the context of the images. So, I would assume that the images, since they are in here to support encyclopedic articles, should have what I would call, encyclopedic visual value, that is, that they support or illustrate topics of encyclopedic interest. Those interest can be of many realms, the arts, biology, physics, history, architecture, etc. So if I were to look at the field of application of this image, which by the way you categorize as "natural," I would categorize it more in architecture, for it is really an artificial environment, a simple pond in a simple garden. As such, as a photograph of an artificial pond I find nothing extraordinary in this photograph, even the composition is lacking in my opinion. Pretty colors and good exposure, other than that, I find nothing else of interest. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 00:01, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • Fine, you find nothing of interest, that's more of a reflection of your interests than of the encyclopaedic value though, in my opinion. Regardless of how accurate the selected category is, for encyclopaedically illustrating Isabella Plantation itself, the arrangement of azaleas around a pond, or any number of potential uses, I think this image would do the job nicely. We'll just have to agree to disagree. Diliff (talk) 00:46, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
              • The issue boils down to that of uniqueness, illustration capacity. You say it is azaleas, well, have a look... #REDIRECT[[1]] ;) --Tomascastelazo (talk) 01:08, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
                • A google image search has absolutely nothing to do with what we have available as freely licensed images on Commons. I could do a Google image search on any of the subjects of our featured pictures and find numerous similar images out there on the web, but what does that prove? Nothing. Diliff (talk) 01:19, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I simply opposed this picture because I do not find it special in any way, photographically or encyclopaedically. You are the one that extended the argument, I was just replying to your comments. This is a "but the emperor has no clothes at all" moment. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 01:34, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
                      • I extended it because I felt your reasoning was flawed and wanted to point that out but ultimately it comes down to opinion and I can see your mind will not be changed. Diliff (talk) 01:50, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
                        • Of course you felt my reasoning was flawed, anything not in alignment with your opinion is flawed. But as I quoted, the emperor has no clothes. ;) --Tomascastelazo (talk) 02:48, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
                          • This is Commons FP, not Wikipedia FP. There is absolutely no requirement at Commons FP for "encyclopedic value". Commons is a repository of "educational" media, and the difference is important. This image has educational value. The degree of educational value is an attribute that can be judged and weighed against the other attributes in an image to justify "featured" status. But an image on Commons can't have zero educational value -- as then it would be deleted. This pond/garden, particularly at this time of year, appears to be a popular subject for photographers and painters. Even if it was just a pond in David's garden, it would have educational value merely as a garden pond. So I think the phrase "relevance for FP" and talk of "encyclopedic value" was unfortunate and a distraction. Instead, the comment "I find nothing extraordinary in this photograph" which essentially means "no wow" is a valid criticism to make at FPC, and fair reason to oppose, though of course one may disagree with it. -- Colin (talk) 14:14, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Ralf Roleček 19:35, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- Pofka (talk) 21:09, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Hubertl (talk) 23:44, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support - Very well managed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:37, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral Seems to me about how sharp and unnatural colors.--Famberhorst (talk) 05:12, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Pretty, but not outstanding for FP. The left side is leaning out and it just looks wrong since you would expect that the water flows to the left, the sky is overexposed, the right crop looks too tight and not balanced in comparison to the left one, the top crop seems to be in the middle of the way (I would have choosen a different composition including the whole of the trees or less of them) one and the reflexion in the water -that could have been the highlight- is not really working out for me (maybe too dark). Sorry David, this one is not a FP to me. Poco2 09:28, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • No problem, but the left is not leaning, it just looks that way because of the shape of the pond. Yes, the sky is blown out but honestly, it's not possible to photograph this kind of forest scene properly and still retain the sky through the trees, even with HDR. I've tried many times and it doesn't work (because of the extreme contrast but also because the trees move in the breeze, making it impossible to blend without ghosting). Also, the sky was overcast so you would only have a dull grey sky anyway. I visited the garden twice just to get this kind of lighting because it works better for the pond and the flowers. With patchy sunlight through the trees, it doesn't look good, with blown highlights in the flowers and a muddy, light brown water. The reason for the composition here is that I especially wanted to take a panorama for the May photo contest. It's a photo taken specifically with panorama proportions in mind. I tried a panorama with just the flowers and the reflections of them in the water but I found the composition was pretty boring actually. I could upload it but I don't think it worked either. Diliff (talk) 10:00, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Sorry but I don't find this composition compelling. It's rather static, central, eye-level view, like someone just snapped a picture of the pond as they walked along the path. I know you're no snapshooter! I think the compositions, colours, reflections in this, this, this (ignoring the fisheye), and this to be superior. (Though those images have technical flaws too, which yours has not). The better ones seem to have the viewer right in among the flowers, rather than a distant spectator. In this, the flowers seem rather far away and the foreground unattractive. The reflection is much better in most of the others -- being actually "still" like the pond's name, which is I think a fairly important characteristic for the subject. -- Colin (talk) 14:33, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Consider a 3:1 panorama of the bushes, with the arc of the base of the flowers going from bottom left to bottom right. Very approximately, at 2107,695 and 5543x1849 in size) -- Colin (talk) 14:37, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, it might seem like a casual snapshot but it's anything but. I tried multiple angles and, as I said, visited twice before settling on this composition. It's not for want of trying something different. Let me start with a summary of known limitations.
  1. It's not possible to shoot this in HDR because even a light breeze causes movement in the trees and the blown sky issue would still not be resolved.
  2. Without HDR, it must be overcast because the dappled sunlight on the flowers easily blows out the red channel and looks very ugly (I tried already on a sunny day). With dappled sunlight on the scene, it's not really possible to expose for the highlights on the flowers to avoid them blowing the red channel because this results in too much shadow noise even at ISO 100.
  3. If it's overcast, the composition needs to minimise the amount of sky visible in the scene, and even the reflections in the pond easily blow out.
  4. The problem is that some of images you've linked to compositionally rely foreground interest on the near side of the pond. There is nice vegetation growing on the banks in photos from previous years. Not so this year. Going for a side view rather than frontal would have worked in previous years but it is visually sparse this year. they must have ripped it all out and replanted only a few seedlings.
  5. I was really trying to get a panoramic aspect ratio. Perhaps it isn't the right ratio for a scene like this, but that was my aim.
With this in mind, let me go through the photos you linked to. The first image is nice, but the aspect ratio and the reliance on foreground to frame it makes it not possible this year. The second image looks much more like a snapshot to me than my image. The third image could work (minus the fisheye projection) but what makes that any less snapshotty? It's still just a centred view, except taken from the edge instead of further back. And it too would suffer with a panoramic aspect ratio. The last image's composition is nice, but wouldn't work as a panorama and I suspect it's pretty difficult to get that view, you'd probably have to stomp all over the azalea bush and/or hold the camera over your head and hope you got the composition as you wanted it. The only other composition I found that I was remotely happy with was this. It's certainly less 'boring and centred', but I'm not convinced the big white patch of sky really works. I could crop the right side considerably but before long, all the cropping makes the composition feel cramped and you wish you could see what lies beyond the framing. And then you see it and wish you didn't. See the conundrum? :-) Anyway, I suppose there's a week or two before the azaleas fade, so if I feel inspired I might give it one more attempt. I appreciate the opposes for compositional reasons. Diliff (talk) 15:14, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate that a change to the planting might have deteriorated the subject. Each of the images have good/bad points - i'm not suggesting any of those are FP level. The second has nice reflections that are clear, still, and blue sky. With the fisheye, the lime-green tree leaves and blue sky was really nice, adding to the pink bushes for a very colourful picture -- I agree the photographer-position is similar to yours but there's more tree/sky which works well in that one (though the fisheye distortions aren't helpful). That photo really makes me want to visit on a sunny day, but yours is a bit like your average UK overcast day, which doesn't give the same happy feelings (I appreciate your argument about blown colours). Your dropbox photo doesn't do much for me either. Perhaps panorama is the wrong shape for this (though see my suggested crop that is still a panorama). I think if you could make a picture that is as happy-sunny-colourful as the fisheye one (ignoring the fisheye aspect, which isn't good) then I'd overlook any blown red channels. After all, they are probably blowing the red cones in my eye too. So I think a lovely sky is possible (or at least, possible in the reflection) even if that is at the expense of over-saturating the bushes. A still reflection of a blue sky would be appropriate for the "still pond", don't you think? -- Colin (talk) 16:12, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Sorry, but the sky is overexposed and the composition doesn't really convince me. The latter may be a matter of taste. --Code (talk) 15:43, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, but the sky is not really important to the scene (it's only visible in patches through the trees) and it is impossible to expose for both the shaded foreground and an bright or overcast sky (See other FP examples. I already explained why HDR is not a good solution for a scene like this). If it was a simple technical mistake that could and should be corrected, fine, but it's not, it's a technical limitation. It's like saying a macro should have unlimited depth of field. Yeah, that would be great, but it's not possible. However, yes the composition is a matter of taste. :-) Diliff (talk) 15:54, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sure, I understand. I didn't want to say that the overexposure was your fault. It's a beautiful picture anyways. --Code (talk) 19:35, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Right, I didn't think that's what you were saying.. but what I was saying is that I don't think the overexposed sky is important to the image so it doesn't really matter that it is overexposed... It is just a few patches visible through the trees. Diliff (talk) 19:47, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Iconic woodland picture, in the very best English landscaping tradition. --Hafspajen 11:50, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose agree with Tomascastelazo.--Davefoc (talk) 22:18, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment IQ is good, but crop/composition i dont like. Luckily you have much size in resreve, so how about crop i put in note ? --Mile (talk) 11:04, 12 May 2015 (UTC) P.S. There is also one more suggestion by someone, also good, just lower rectangle a bit.[reply]
    • OK I can see the point, but this nomination is almost over, it would be wrong to change the image so significantly at this point. If it fails (it probably will), I will see if a different crop is more popular. Diliff (talk) 12:01, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  OpposeI don't necessarily agree with other opposes, but it lacks wow in my opinion. I think it's above many other candidates on that page (and many FP) but "unfortunately" I voice my opinion here (if I would for your organ above, would be an oppose as well). And it's probably possible to shoot HDR even if the leaves move. In such case, I do additional work like manually underexposing and overexposing the normally exposed shot where necessary, and if possible, so everything overlap nicely. Easier to say but I'm pretty sure this is what advanced HDR soft do anyways. Or you get anything but a Canon sensor and don't need HDR ;-) - Benh (talk) 11:01, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you want to vote on the Organ image, please do even if it's oppose. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts (but it shouldn't affect the result anyway I think). It is possible to shoot HDR, but there are consequences for the details when you do that. If the leaves move (and they will for sure), you have the problem where the leaves are in one position in the bright exposure, and the sky is in another position in the dark exposure. There is overlap. This would be fine if it was a simple scene with just a few leaves - you could manually clone out the problems. But when there are thousands of individual branches and leaves, it becomes far too difficult to do well. Even advanced HDR software does a bad job at managing ghosts. I know, because I've used many. In fact Lightroom CC is actually terrible at removing ghosts, and HDR merging was supposed to be its main new feature. I've been experimenting with it recently and the results are very poor indeed. Even a Nikon/Sony sensor would struggle with a scene of such high dynamic range. They have an extra 2 stops of dynamic range compared to Canon sensors, but I think you'd need more than that. Anyway, I think it's time to withdraw this nomination. It has no chance of succeeding and I accept the oppose reasoning (some of it anyway ;-) ). I've actually visited the gardens again on a sunny day and I think I have a few images that could be candidates. With direct sunlight, this scene is extremely challenging from a technical POV, retaining details (particularly on the flowers, but also in the sky) and avoiding ghosting and blending artefacts. Diliff (talk) 11:33, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't take the time to vote on all FPC, but based on the thumbnails alone, I would oppose a lot. I came to that one because the subject caught my eyes, and it's a fine example of "sharp and big is not all" that I wanted to point out. Yes LR's HDR sucks a lot. It's good when everything is still, but not so at removing ghosts (it seems to naively use the lowest exposure alone). LR sucks at many other things... like interpolation Fuji X-trans RAW. Even a free soft like dcraw does a much better job... Wish there's a plugin. Your other candidates are better IMO. The shadows patterns are interesting. Not sure I would support because the compositions look awkward (it feels you weren't sure of how to frame it), but it's only me. One suggestion (it's free !) because it's still, maybe getting closer to the water will give a nice symmetric reflection. - Benh (talk) 16:11, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • I wouldn't say that I wasn't sure how to frame it, each image was a deliberate choice of composition. I tried different compositions to concentrate on different aspects of the scene so each image has a different 'purpose', but I think the problem is that none stand out as obviously 'the perfect' composition. Each has its own compromises and problems (reflections, sky, asymmetry of the shape of the flower bushes, etc). And yes LR's HDR is okay when everything is still, but so is all the other HDR merging software. I was expecting a lot more from Adobe as they usually improve on the competition. I've been discussing it with Colin privately. I was comparing the HDR output (not the tone mapping, but just the HDR merging) of PTGui vs Lightroom. PTGui is so much better. I still do the tone mapping in Lightroom afterwards regardless of which HDR merge process is used, but the files created by LR HDR merge are so much worse. See here: PTGui HDR 32 bit TIFF vs LR HDR merge 32bit DNG. It's difficult to compare them directly because the adjustments for tone mapping needed by each file are different because the files don't seem to have the same data. Also, in the LR file, the stream has been 'ghost corrected' and as you say, it's taken the darkest exposure which was a stupid idea, it was too dark and the result is awful. But look at the texture and tonality of the ferns and grass. The LR HDR file has lost all detail in the grass and is extremely flat and there seems to only be two shades of green - dark and light. PTGui's version is much much better with a lot more texture and range of luminosity. So I'm very disappointed with LR to be honest. Oh, and LR took an extremely long time to process the HDR file. About 10 times slower than PTGui (which stitched AND HDR merged a 115 image panorama in the time it took LR to only HDR merge the downsampled image at about 11000 x 9000 resolution). Diliff (talk) 16:57, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 8 support, 6 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 16:59, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Still_Pond,_Isabella_Plantation,_Richmond_Park,_London,_UK_-_Diliff.jpg&oldid=160914094"