Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Berliner Dom, Nacht, 160316, ako.jpg

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

File:Berliner Dom, Nacht, 160316, ako.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Mar 2016 at 12:12:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Berlin cathedral at night. On the right the Fernsehturm can be seen.
  •  Comment Yes, the verticals are not perfectly rectilinear. I tried rotating the picture a little bit CCW but then the TV tower looked tilted. Strange effect, I don't fully understand it. This version seemed to be the most balanced to me. --Code (talk) 12:49, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment. I'm not sure abou the HDR processing on this one. The highlights are reduced too much for my tastes. I haven't looked at the histogram but it doesn't look right to me. Diliff (talk) 12:35, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I had to reduce the highlights this much to avoid clipping at the ceiling of the entrance area of the cathedral like it happened in this version. The dynamic range of the scene is higher than one would guess. --Code (talk) 12:49, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are good arguments in favour of not attempting to recover all highlights, or being more selective in how you recover them (ie by using an adjustment brush rather than using global highlight adjustments). I think taking that approach would be more useful in keeping the scene looking more realistic. Just my opinion anyway. Diliff (talk) 10:46, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

* Oppose - I don't like all the lines in the sky that look like 100 or so meteors. I'm surprised no-one's brought them up yet, but I cannot support this picture because of those. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:03, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Actually, no. I'd need a tripod to do that effectively. I take your point but don't feel mollified, as I feel like all those streaks make this photo less than one of the best on the site. Perhaps I'll reconsider later, but I don't think you'll need my vote, either way. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:47, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The effect is minimised by keeping overall exposure short (see 500-rule). Here, the multiple exposures exceed 47s and a 50mm lens is used on a full-frame camera. A single-exposure photo would not have required such a long duration, and most of our FPs don't demonstrate this (as far as I can see). I wonder what would happen if the longest exposure was removed from the set? Would the shadows become much noisier?. Would you have got away with opening the aperture another stop, since much of the image is relatively distant? Not that I suggest repeating the whole shot just to remove some little trails. -- Colin (talk) 16:27, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak  Support Very nice image, but IMO the stars (or better the stripes) are disturbing. --XRay talk 16:35, 20 March 2016 (UTC)/OK now. --XRay talk 20:53, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support possible but not necessarily desirable to delete all the stars or to repeat the shot under a cloudy sky. The main motive is presented excellently given the circumstances.--Milseburg (talk) 17:04, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support INeverCry 17:18, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Excellent quality. Suggested cutting (see notes) --The Photographer (talk) 20:06, 20 March 2016 (UTC)New version look  Overexposed --The Photographer (talk) 21:57, 21 March 2016 (UTC)  Support Better now --The Photographer (talk) 09:46, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • * Oppose I'll oppose this for two reasons. 1) Tilt per Colin. Unless you have a very good reason always set your verticals in to center of the frame (eg zoom in, find a line that should be vertical, rotate until it is, and then correct perspective). 2) Tone mapping per Diliff. The image is just extremely flat. The bottom looks like someone accidentally dumped a can or two of yellow paint over it. As city dwelling humans we know, instinctively, what should be lighter and darker on the Dom yet it is almost the same luminosity top to bottom, just with different coloring. This also has the side effect pf turning the Na lamps ugly clunks of white blobs with 2-3-4x halos around them. I'm a firm believer that images with this much dynamic diff need to be exposed "correctly" and worked with layers/masks on the over/underexposed parts. Pretty much the only way to keep the right tonal balance. Having said this it's an otherwise excellent image but for reasons before can't support. KennyOMG (talk) 00:00, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Guys, you drive me crazy ;-) @Diliff: However, I could try to provide you the 32bit PSD file tonight if you'd like to help me... (although I know you've got better things to do at the moment - congrats by the way!) --Code (talk) 10:54, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd be happy to have a try with it, although yes I've been pretty busy recently. :-) I can't guarantee I'd be able to process it before it's too late for this nomination though. If you can provide the link (either by email or posting here), I'll do my best though. Diliff (talk) 11:47, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment - The colors seem more vivid to me, which I like, but a few of the stars are a bit traily. I see them only at full resolution, though. I'll leave the choice to you and anyone else who has a strong opinion. I'm OK with either version. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:44, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm, I don't like it, sorry. When I said more contrast, I meant contrast in areas where (in the original image, not the edits) it looks a bit flat, like the entrance, rather than global contrast. The global contrast could be increased a little bit IMO, but not so much - now the light looks too harsh (and oversharpened?). I do like the way the entrance is processed in the latest version though - you finally got that right although I would still give the statues above a bit more contrast), but I think the rest of the image suffers now. ;-) Let me put it like this: I like the entrance arch of the latest version, the colour/saturation levels of this version, but the deep blue sky of the original (but not the oversaturation elsewhere). I'm not sure if you can create this Frankenstein of an image, but I think that's closest to what I was picturing in my mind's eye. I'd still make a few other minor changes here and there, but I don't want to micromanage your image - it's yours, after all, I'm just making suggestions. Diliff (talk) 09:12, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Diliff: I gave it another try, perhaps you can have a look at the last version. Maybe I just don't get what you mean. I made only a few changes compared to the last version when I pinged everybody so I don't think it will be necessary to bother everybody again. If I can't convince you with that last version, too then I think I'll have to live with it. I tried to upload the PSD file but it has more than 2GB. Maybe I can provide you a smaller 32bit TIFF file soon. --Code (talk) 05:23, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Come on, seriously? I've put so much work in this picture and still everybody finds another shortcoming. I'm beginning to regret having nominated it here... --Code (talk) 19:41, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think Daniel's oppose is slightly harsh but I do agree that the lighting is harsh... it might have looked better 10-15 minutes earlier in the blue hour when it was more balanced between natural and artificial light. But I do think it's good enough as-is. Diliff (talk) 20:20, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 20 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 13:58, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Religious_buildings
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Berliner_Dom,_Nacht,_160316,_ako.jpg&oldid=191579244"