Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Paraglider near Nebelhorn.jpg

File:Paraglider near Nebelhorn.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Jan 2017 at 09:31:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Previous version nominations

Featured picture candidates/File:Paraglider near Nebelhorn.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Paraglider near Nebelhorn.jpg Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Germany  Info all by Miha (talk)  Support -- Miha (talk) 09:31, 22 January 2017 (UTC) I vote for the edited picture.  Support. Gorgeous view and lighting. It would be even better if shifted down - i.e. less sky, and more foreground. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:36, 22 January 2017 (UTC)  Support Poco2 09:54, 22 January 2017 (UTC) I also prefer the third one Poco2 21:34, 25 January 2017 (UTC)  Info I uploaded another version, with a different cut (as proposed by @King of Hearts), and less noise in the sky (i worked with raw file instead of jpg) and thus different saturation settings (I couldn't reconstruct base white balance of raw file to match camera settings for jpg conversion) --Miha (talk) 10:33, 22 January 2017 (UTC) I would vote  Support cause I believe it is an outstanding picture, but I discovered I still haven't 50 edits on my account! ---- Argos of Athens 13:04, 22 January 2017 (UTC)  Oppose Shows features of a JPG pushed too far in processing (blockiness, posterisation). -- Colin (talk) 12:13, 22 January 2017 (UTC)  Oppose Composition good, may be FP. But JPEG artifacts. And the title says "Paraglider", a main motiv. ;-) --XRay talk 13:27, 22 January 2017 (UTC)  Oppose Sorry but for the opposers --LivioAndronico (talk) 13:49, 22 January 2017 (UTC)  Oppose - Striations/JPG artifacts in the sky. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:15, 22 January 2017 (UTC) Alternative  Info lower cut, saturated colours  Comment The composition is better, but the colors are too strong. Can you restore the original colors? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:48, 22 January 2017 (UTC)  Info I replaced this file with a new version --Miha (talk) 11:02, 22 January 2017 (UTC)  Support Oppose Could probably be processed in several ways, according to taste. But it's a great scene. The JPG seems to be missing its colour profile (sRGB), it would be good to add one. It is possible to get GIMP to do this but I don't use it enough to remember offhand. -- Colin (talk) 12:13, 22 January 2017 (UTC) The processing is still too damaging on this version too. -- Colin (talk) 23:03, 24 January 2017 (UTC) * Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:13, 22 January 2017 (UTC)  Info I added standard GIMP colour space data. I was not aware of it's importance as I usually post sooc images. --Miha (talk) 12:26, 22 January 2017 (UTC)  Oppose Problems CAs at the snow parts. Please check your image. And please no JPEG compression, just 100%. --XRay talk 13:30, 22 January 2017 (UTC) Weak  Oppose Checked again. IMO no CAs but cold colors in the shadows. That's natural. But the sky still looks posterized (JPEG artifacts). Please try to fix it with less compression. --XRay talk 08:32, 24 January 2017 (UTC)  Oppose Sorry but for the XRAY --LivioAndronico (talk) 13:49, 22 January 2017 (UTC)  Comment what do you mean by "CA"? There are no artefacts in the snow – the mountain wall is quite steep and snow only partially covered the rocks (which results in grey spots in the snow). I did no compression in Gimp, I could share RAW if someone is better at editing. --Miha (talk) 20:36, 22 January 2017 (UTC) I am confused about the "CA" comment. Also, 100% JPG is not necessary. For Photoshop 11/12 is just fine and the equivalent on Lightroom is 90%. I don't know the optimal setting on GIMP but 100% (no compression) is not necessary for FP. -- Colin (talk) 20:43, 22 January 2017 (UTC) Agreed. And optimal settings on GIMP are between 97 and 99, depending on level of concern that posterisation might occur -- Thennicke (talk) 05:54, 23 January 2017 (UTC)  Support - Beautiful and a better version. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:15, 22 January 2017 (UTC)  Support – Lucas 22:41, 22 January 2017 (UTC)  Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:31, 23 January 2017 (UTC)  Support--M★Zaplotnik (edits) 11:49, 23 January 2017 (UTC)  Oppose Definitly no FP. There are strong artefacts in the dark part on the right. --Milseburg (talk) 14:10, 23 January 2017 (UTC)  Neutral - I'm not sure anymore. There's a lot of color noise on the right. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:28, 23 January 2017 (UTC)  Comment I applied some blur in the most affected areas in the updated version, so that CA's in the sun rays are not visible anymore – the edit can be reverted if the blur itself became a factor of distraction. --Miha (talk) 00:04, 24 January 2017 (UTC) Miha, please remove the blur. I remained puzzled about the CA comments -- I see no CA anywhere. I see that the area on the far right has been pushed a bit too far, and has perhaps posterised, but that could be handled better than a huge blur. You are welcome to send me the raw file and I will send you back a JPG if you want to see what Lightroom can do for this. -- Colin (talk) 07:53, 24 January 2017 (UTC)  Oppose per Milseburg; they definitely weren't there in the original. Daniel Case (talk) 07:40, 24 January 2017 (UTC)  Comment I uploaded a 16-bit tif with the desired colour temperature (8653 K) and reduced green (.919) and no CA's. It seems that the problem is GIMP inability to work with 16 bit colorspace (the subsequent contrast changes to the rocky structure of the foreground mountain in the right part of the picture). I was not able to upload NEF, so @Colin: can get it per Email. --Miha (talk) 08:43, 24 January 2017 (UTC) You can upload NEF here: [1]. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:51, 25 January 2017 (UTC)  Support --Karelj (talk) 10:05, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Lightroom edit

•  Info Colin's edit. Same as above, but edited in Lightroom (which supports 16bit colour space => greater quality).
•  Support --Miha (talk) 08:49, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
• @Lucasbosch, XRay, Daniel Case, Ikan Kekek, and Milseburg: @MZaplotnik, Thennicke, King of Hearts, Livioandronico2013, and Martin Falbisoner: @Άργος, PetarM, and Poco a poco:
•  Support -- Colin (talk) 09:45, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Btw, Miha, Lightroom supports 32-bit floating point HDR, which is far greater image depth than even 16-bit integer, and more than our 10- to 14-bit sensors can output currently. Thus one can heavily manipulate the raw file without causing posterisation, vs 8-bit JPG. Even a 16-bit tiff will posterise in the highlights if manipulated, because a standard gamma does not allocate very many bits to the brightest levels, vs a raw file which is the opposite because of its linear gamma. -- Colin (talk) 09:50, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the info and the edit!! It seems that the Gimp is getting 32-bit support in the next stable version (2.10) too, currently only the unstable (2.9) version has it, whereas the stable version (2.8) only supports 8-bits. --Miha (talk) 00:15, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
•  Support – Lucas 09:46, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- Thennicke (talk) 10:36, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
•  Support - I really like this version. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:58, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:48, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
•  Support This one's great! --M★Zaplotnik ^(edits) 13:01, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
•  Support It work now. --Mile (talk) 13:48, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Better, indeed. Poco² 21:34, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Colin saves the day! (Literally ...) Daniel Case (talk) 23:10, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
•  Question shall we replace the old version by this file after voting, as keeping three separate versions makes only little sense (this version is of much better quality) --Miha (talk) 00:11, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

• Miha: Jaz bi zgornje dve obrisal kot {{duplicate}} od tele, ne bi nič dodatno menjal ker samo plac zavzavme dodatno. Tukaj pa makar spremeni ime fajla pa dodaj opis iz originala. --Mile (talk) 07:29, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
• Rough translation of Mile's message: I would mark the other two files as {{Duplicate}} of this new version. Additionally, you can change filename of this one (...)

• Ok, good suggestion. Hvala :) --Miha (talk) 07:36, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

•  Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:20, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Karelj (talk) 11:20, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Mile (talk) 06:48, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural#Germany

The chosen alternative is: File:Paraglider near Nebelhorn (Lightroom edit).jpg