Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Still Pond 3, Isabella Plantation, Richmond Park, London, UK - Diliff.jpg

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

File:Still Pond 3, Isabella Plantation, Richmond Park, London, UK - Diliff.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 May 2015 at 08:20:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Isabella Plantation Still Pond

 Oppose hmm, way too saturated, imo. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:39, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • It's so difficult to please everyone. What specifically do you think is too saturated? In my previous nomination, people complained that the colours/lighting was too flat. I haven't increased the saturation of this image at all though. The flowers are actually very bright and saturated and I don't think they are misrepresented. The leaves in the tree are saturated because they are illuminated by the sunlight, not because the saturation has been enhanced digitally. Here's two screen captures from Lightroom of the original RAW files of the flowers and the leaves, showing no additional processing at all. Spring is just a very saturated time of year for colours. Diliff (talk) 15:21, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the sky's the dealbreaker for me. Just doesn't look natural here. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 18:54, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. The saturation of the sky hasn't been altered either. Diliff (talk) 18:58, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I uploaded a few version with a lightened sky (which has the effect of making the sky look desaturated). Can you comment on that version? Diliff (talk) 20:07, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Much (!) better.  Support now --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 20:26, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, I didn't think it would stand no chance, I just thought it was a composition that was slightly more artistic (with the focus being on the reflection) which is often not rewarded on Commons. It's also not as high resolution. I considered both images for nomination but thought this one would have a better chance. Maybe I was wrong! Diliff (talk) 11:12, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You would be more than welcome to. I do also wonder if people would find it too similar, but we can find out. I think they have different focuses, personally (even if they show the same pond), so it would be fine for me. Diliff (talk) 16:27, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose The HDR look is a bit too strong. It looks weird when the sky is such a dark shade of blue relative to the foreground which is in shade. In my opinion it should be a faint blue, just barely enough to not blow out. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:44, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wrt sky colour, we are not seeing the sky close to the horizon (where it is light) but relatively high (where it is deeper). The deep blue of the sky varies with the weather and pollution. Today, on my journey to work, I saw solid blue sky through very light green leaves. But other areas of the sky were pale blue and others verging on turquoise. I don't think expecting the sky to be "faint blue, just barely enough to not blow out" is valid if the sky wasn't actually that light a shade of blue. The issues of the sky being very bright compared to a shady area aren't represented by making the sky go pale, which is an artificial result of a sensor blowing on all channels: if you turn up the brightness of a blue (or red, or green) bulb, it doesn't go white. It just goes a more intense and bright blue. -- Colin (talk) 09:49, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, in addition to what Colin said, I would just add that the point of HDR is to help replicate what the eye sees, not to replicate the limitations of digital camera sensors. I know that traditionally with photography, we would expect to see the sky being brighter than the shaded foliage but I can tell you that when I was there, I could clearly see deep blue sky through the trees. The sky was a paler blue closer to the horizon (and that is reflected in the image where it starts to verge on white) due to the effect of haze and clouds, but up high in the sky as Colin mentioned was a deep blue. I know nothing I can say will necessarily convince your eyes that it looks 'right' as that is subjective, but for me, it looks very close to what I saw when I photographed it. Sometimes HDR can 'overdo' the contrast of the scene but I usually try quite hard to replicate what was seen and not push the contrast and saturation just for dramatic effect. Diliff (talk) 11:05, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • We are limited by the relatively low dynamic range of JPG and computer monitors. The next ultra high definition movie format is supposed to be higher DR and we are promised a higher DR in our TV and monitors to go with it. But even then, it won't match reality because then you'd have a TV that, if it showed a picture of the sun, could burn your retina and fade your furniture fabric :-). Just be grateful we're not pre-1900 where film wasn't even panchromatic and all blue skys were burnt out pure white. -- Colin (talk) 11:56, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • We are limited by the LDR of computer monitors, but we can attempt to replicate the tones that the eye sees, even if we can't replicate the intensity of them. I don't think HDR TVs and monitors that replicate the real luminosity of a scene is really the answer anyway. Yes, we can increase the maximum luminosity but it still has to factor in comfortable ranges suitable to the room that you're watching in. If you're in a dark room watching a film, you don't want an intense beam of sunlight in your face, you want something merely bright relative to the dark room you're watching in to give the illusion of sunlight. In any case, you'd also need a TV screen that covered your entire field of view to replicate how the eye sees. Having highlights that are as bright as the sun but concentrated in a 60" box of pixels would be much harder on the eyes than reality ever could be, because in the real world we actually have to shade the sun away from our eyes if we want to have any hope of seeing something in the shadows, lest it be washed out by the effect of the sunlight reflecting around inside our eyeballs! It would be very difficult to do that with a narrow angle of view that we typically watch a TV with. Diliff (talk) 12:52, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Tremonist (talk) 14:47, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- Pofka (talk) 18:30, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- Colin (talk) 21:46, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Agree with King of Hearts. --Halavar (talk) 13:24, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Σπάρτακος (talk) 10:58, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 13 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 18:26, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Still_Pond_3,_Isabella_Plantation,_Richmond_Park,_London,_UK_-_Diliff.jpg&oldid=161870274"