Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bern Panorama von Rosengarten 20211007.jpg

File:Bern Panorama von Rosengarten 20211007.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Dec 2021 at 12:29:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Bern Panorama von Rosengarten 20211007.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bern Panorama von Rosengarten 20211007.jpg

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Settlements#Switzerland
•  Info created by Domob - uploaded by Domob - nominated by Domob -- Domob (talk) 12:29, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
•  Comment High-resolution panorama of the medieval old town of Bern. The view from Rosengarten is one of the best over the town. --Domob (talk) 12:29, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
•  Support -- Domob (talk) 12:29, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
•  Comment Breathtaking resolution of course, but I have to address two issues: 1. Saturation is too high. Oh yes, it is. Especially visible on the red flags and the orange cranes right of center. 2. Image looks a bit overprocessed altogether (I’d call it "tonemapping to the limit"), resulting in the city (and the background mountains) being unnaturally bright compared to the sky and cloud bottoms. --Kreuzschnabel 16:32, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
  • For me the worst offender in terms of saturation is the color of the sky. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:59, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the feedback! I see what you mean, and will reprocess the panorama from sources; I hope to have a new version by tomorrow. --Domob (talk) 17:53, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
      •  Done I've reprocessed the image now from raws, toning down saturation and related settings; Rawtherapee's "tone mapping" was not turned on at all, nor does the panorama use any fancy HDR tone-mapping. Note that the red flags on the Bundeshaus are very striking even in the original frames without any saturation applied at all in post processing (I explicitly checked that). King of ♥, Kreuzschnabel, please let me know if the image is better now. The sky and background are definitely less blueish, and saturation should be a bit less in general. --Domob (talk) 19:11, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
        • Now there’s a yellow-brownish cast all over it. I don’t think I’m going to fall in love with this one. --Kreuzschnabel 12:37, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
          • Do you mean that WB is now too warm, and it should be in the middle of previously and now? Or that you think in general it is fine, and you just don't think this picture per se is FP? I'm happy to try adjusting the WB further if it seems still off. --Domob (talk) 14:13, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
•  Support Saturation is fine now, but white balance looks a bit too cold to me. --Uoaei1 (talk) 19:54, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

  +1 That is the other reason why the sky is still a little too blue. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:00, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

   Done I've redeveloped now with a warmer WB (and without additional desaturation of blues). --Domob (talk) 09:13, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

  It seems to be a little too yellow now (also there appears to be a weird repeated cloud in the top left). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:41, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

   Comment Uuh, this is by far too much! --Uoaei1 (talk) 16:15, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

   Done Agreed, sorry for taking it too far (and all the changes). The WB is now between the previous versions and hopefully more balanced. --Domob (talk) 16:52, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

  OK, the white balance is good now, but actually blue saturation is still a little too high; I also think blacks should be more pronounced/darker to improve contrast. I see you've redone the sky at the top left, but now there's a different repeated cloud pattern. If you're going to fill in some fake sky, you have to do it in a convincing manner. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:18, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

   Done I've adjusted blue saturation and the black point. Thanks again for all the valuable feedback you give! It doesn't look like this will pass with great support anyway, but at least the picture itself is getting better. --Domob (talk) 05:51, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

•  Support -- Colin (talk) 20:53, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
•  Oppose Overprocessed image, looks unreal or cartoonish, colors are way off --Yeriho (talk) 18:57, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
•  Support Not Overprocessed for me --Commonists 15:43, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

• Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 16:22, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

•  Support I am still not totally sure about the colours, too, but colours/contrast are much better now and overall this is a splendid panorama. @King of Hearts: Thank you very much for your exemplarily helpful comments on this photo; they have improved it much. --Aristeas (talk) 16:36, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
•  Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:02, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
• Not sure about the colors. Although previous versions were perhaps too blue, this one also looks off: the clouds are a bit yellowish. Buidhe (talk) 19:03, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
•  Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 14:49, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
•  Support Valuable panorama, and the yellow light seems plausible to me, though I'd welcome the opportunity to see another version of the white balance. Is this a cylindrical projection? I don't think most ordinary viewers would know that "Panoramic view" means "cylindrical projection," so I consider it important to spell out if such a distortion is used. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:06, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

   Comment Yes, this is a cylindrical projection -- that is mentioned already in the file description, although rather at the end than the beginning. Do you think that is not explicit enough? As to the WB, there are at least three versions in the revisions now -- one that is colder than the current one, and one that is warmer. I think the current one is a good balance now (again lots of thanks to King of Hearts). --Domob (talk) 08:27, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

•  Comment The filename merely has "panorama" in it. To ordinary viewers, that word just suggests a view with a broad geographic scope. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:51, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

•  Comment I'm sorry, I really can read when I put my mind to it...Anyway, yes, what's in your file description is fine... -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:21, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

•  Comment Ok cool, thanks for the clarification. It is definitely not mentioned very prominently, so I wasn't sure if you perhaps meant that I should reword the description or something (anyway feel free to suggest or just do any clarifications you think would help, of course). --Domob (talk) 05:15, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

•  Weak support Great job with the cityscape but I wish the sky offered more. Daniel Case (talk) 18:24, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
•  Oppose Lovely scenery, but the colors are off. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 06:31, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
•  Support I honestly really like the colours - a very beautiful cityscape. Cmao20 (talk) 15:37, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:50, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#Switzerland