Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Jarro-2.jpg

Image:Jarro-2.jpg

Version 1 (left) - not featured

•  Info Still a flower, but this one looks beautiful. Created and nominated by Alvesgaspar--Alvesgaspar 10:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --Alvesgaspar 10:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose It pains me to oppose. Same reason as below. Sorry. -- Ram-Man 04:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

 1 support, 1 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 5th day) - Alvesgaspar 10:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Version 2 (right) - not featured

•  Support - Alvesgaspar 10:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Like the heart the flower draws but the picture is burned--Alipho 18:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • No, it is not, please check again. Alvesgaspar 19:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
•  Comment I checked the histogram in detail. A large portion of the whites occupy the uppermost 4% of the tonal range. On an 8-bit image, that's almost invisible tonality. Expanding the range artificially replaces the burned out highlights with posterization. "Burned" here should mean overexposed, not clipped, since technically the histogram is not severely clipped. The heart is beautiful, for sure, but the petals are almost pure white. This image (and mine below) show the problems with 8-bit digitized images of white objects. Try to reproduce the natural whites and you blow out the tonality in the highlights. Expose less and the whole thing looks unnaturally murky. So on this image people are complaining about blown highlights, while on my image there is question about it being "murky". It's hard to get it right! -- Ram-Man 20:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
•  Comment - When we look at a white flower like this, under these same light conditions, do we really see much more detail than the one which is depicted in the photo? Very often we forget that that our own eyes also have a sensibility limit. Is it fair to require a photo to show more than what we see with our own eyes? - Alvesgaspar 21:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
•  OpposeThe human eye sees with *much* greater tonal range than what the 256 tonal gradations are in an image. It can also see at a higher resolution with which to distinquish slight variations in tone. The eye can distinguish between lights and darks automatically and our brain makes it all seem good. This image is overexposed and it doesn't look natural to me. In some images this isn't a problem, but in this image the whites make up most of the content. This image seems to have about the level of tonality that I'm looking for. I really appreciate the difficulty. I find this image of mine to be extremely beautiful, but it's overexposed. I think it looks good anyway, but it wouldn't survive a FP candidacy. -- Ram-Man 04:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

 1 support, 2 oppose >> not featured (rule of the 5th day) - Alvesgaspar 10:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)