Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sun and moon at sunset.jpg

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

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Dec 2018 at 21:57:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Sun and moon at sunset
  • Thank you for spotting the gable, I totally missed that. Not sure how the shadow on the left came to be. I was leaning out of an open window taking these photos. Saying that the moon was copied in is a very serious accusation. When I get home I will upload all the nine photos and the raw files in my dropbox and post a link to to it here. After that you might want to withdraw your faulty comment. Is such a thing really what you think of me or is this payback for my opposing your photo? I have been waiting for years to be able to do this photo since a waxing new moon only occurs at winter solstice about every 19th year, and then to be accused of pasting is unbelievable! You can take a look at the Photographer's Ephemeris and see and compare the positions of the celestial bodies that day and time. Taking the photos, I put the focus on the moon and the sun in those photos, since I wanted those features as sharp as possible. For the shots in between, I focused on the treeline since focus didn't lock on the clouds. Matching the exposures in Lightroom wasn't easy since the light varied so much over the scene. The left side had to be stepped down a bit to match the right side, but I wanted to keep the moon bright and visible so I did a local exposure adjustment on it back to original exposure. Some bits of sky up right and a small piece of dark land down left were missing after the panorama merge/projection, and I used aware fill for those. Last some light and color adjustment. That's it. --Cart (talk) 14:19, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have been advised by another user that I shouldn't need to upload all the original photos, Ermell should AGF and take my word for this being real, but at least I want to show the original for the moon photo. Here it is in my dropbox, jpeg and raw. Anyway, I've taken a lot of shit here FPC because of my experimental photos, including being accused of devaluing the FP status with them. Now being accused of cheating was the last straw, and as of now I'm leaving FPC and the FP project. --Cart (talk) 16:09, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Comment I did not mean that it is so but that it would be possible which would not have been easy work. The moon fits very well into the picture and is just perfectly exposed which is often a problem with such pictures. I don't really understand the excitement.--Ermell (talk) 18:45, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please Ermell, don't play misunderstood and innocent. Your English is excellent and you are perfectly capable of expressing exactly what you mean. If it truly was a mistake saying that the moon "is probably copied in" and insulting me, then just apologizing would have been easy to do. But you did not do that. I came here again because Colin 'pinged' me, I will not make a habit of it. --Cart (talk) 19:07, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Thanks for the compliment, but I find it rather mediocre. What can be read between the lines is not always easy to see. By "copied in" I did not mean that there was no moon. If it would have been overexposed one could have improved it so. Sorry if that caused so much excitement here but I never thought about fraud. Impositions do not help in any case and are unfair.--Ermell (talk) 19:23, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • On processing the RAW file supplied, I have uncovered that this is no moon. Cart has turned to the Dark Side of the Force. But seriously, Ermell, your "moon .. is probably copied in" looks like you are accusing Cart of faking this photo's special composition of sun and moon together. At the very least, if you just meant an exposure blend was used, then you should have asked that as a question rather than an allegation. Why say "probably copied" when you can ask Cart for yourself? It comes across as hostile. I don't see the "faults" you claim. If I greatly increase the brightness and examine the bottom few pixels of this 50MP image, I can see a slight uncertain line of white gable, but this is definitely being petty to oppose over that. The bad faith and petty nit picking make me think you are taking the votes at Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bamberg Grain Silo 6140208.jpg in a bad way and revenge voting here. I ask Ermell that you apologise for your accusation of cheating (composition or exposure) and bad faith towards Cart. If you are indeed in a bad mood over your other candidate, then strike your vote and take a break from FPC. -- Colin (talk) 18:23, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I have not accused anyone of fraud here, that is now itself an accusation and revenge vote is not my thing. I would have a lot to do. Those who cannot live with criticism always have a hard time in life.--Ermell (talk) 19:09, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment That my comment could possibly be taken as such by all English-speaking here as a fraud accusation was not intended and that would also not be very constructive. How this is to be understood I have now explained in detail enough. If I have come too close to anyone with this, please excuse me. Since I, like many of you here, use the translation machine, I usually hold myself back a little because to conduct extensive dialogues can be very time-consuming.--Ermell (talk) 22:40, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 05:35, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Sun_and_moon_at_sunset.jpg&oldid=332321576"