Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Iceberg with hole near sanderson hope 2007-07-28 2.jpg

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

Image:Iceberg with hole near sanderson hope 2007-07-28 2.jpg - featured[edit]

Short description

No over-exposed areas? Perfect? I think where there is light the photo is too bright, where is shadow (much on iceberg) is too dark. --Beyond silence 20:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support On my screen, the balance between light and dark is perfect: the whites are bright but not overexposed, and the shadows are certainly not too dark. I suppose people see images in a different way, because their screens are not calibrated in the same way. I support this nice picture, although the sharpness of the lower right part is not really excellent. -- MJJR 20:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I don't quite understand this one. At f6.3 and at that distance the whole image should be sharp, but in fact only the left-hand edge is. As you move across to the right the details get more and more blurred. --MichaelMaggs 08:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it is because in reality the two sides of the iceberg are at quite different distances (although it appears to be taken from the side). I guess the auto-focus has caugth the left hand side of the iceberg leading to the observation you have. I had to photograph it quickly as a "target of oppertunity", and I had no control of the ship as it was on an official assignment (not a tourist trip). Thus, the nominated image and this image differ by one minut (the resolution) in their EXIFs, meaning I had no second chances to check the sharpess of the shots. In addition, I do not have a DSLR. Although I am really amazed by the capability of my small compact camera, the technical quality will not be on par with most FPCs. I am not trying to excuse sub-optimal technical quality. I would just like to explain the circumstances. It is up to the individual reviewer to consider if the rarity of the subject and the circumstances mitigates these observations, and I respect your stance. -- Slaunger 09:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    To me it looks as if you have a bit of dirt or maybe a water drop on the right side of your lense. With the small lenses of a compact camera this can have a big effect on the photo. You should check your lense. The coastline behind the iceberg should have the same sharpness but it hasn't. I also had that problem with my compact Canon...and a lense cleaning resulted in an impressive improvement of the photo quality :) --AngMoKio 08:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for this advice AngMoKio. That may be another root cause. I know this is really off-topic, but how did you clean the lens? -- Slaunger 11:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    well a difficult topic. Depends a bit what kind of dirt you have. I had a part of a finger print on the lense and removed it with a little bit of warm water and a paper towel. Important is that you dont press and rub hard...otherwise you can scratch the lense. There should be special cleaning kits available. The way i did it was for sure not the best. Cleaning my lenses and the sensor is sth i postpone all the time, because i am scared of it :) --AngMoKio 20:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the explanation. It seems simpler than I had feared. -- Slaunger 21:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Still be very careful! --AngMoKio 21:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I always get a UV filter for all my lenses. They're much easier to clean, and you don't care if you scratch one of those. Also, I have a rubber air-blower that works pretty well. --Dori - Talk 21:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Mfield 15:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Low quality, not sharp enough. --Karelj 18:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral - I'm torn. --- Anonymous DissidentTalk 20:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I would have supported without issue raised by Michael Maggs and AngMoKio. The right part is very soft, even after downsampling. :( Benh 18:08, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support I do agree with Benh that the right part is unsharp, which I put down to a camera issue (it happened to me as well, guess why I had my camera repaired). Personally for me the wow overcompensates this. -- Klaus with K 21:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support A nice ice berg. Some reviewers seem to have problems with their screens. Have a look at the histogram: This image is perfectly exposed. However the right side is a bit unsharp but this doesn't surprise me on a compact camera. --Ikiwaner 22:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
8 support, 2 neutral, 4 oppose >> featured -- Alvesgaspar 08:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/Image:Iceberg_with_hole_near_sanderson_hope_2007-07-28_2.jpg&oldid=143633956"