Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Convento de San Buenaventura - Betancuria - Fuerteventura.jpg

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

File:Convento de San Buenaventura - Betancuria - Fuerteventura.jpg

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 May 2015 at 13:50:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The remainings of the Convento de San Buenaventura, Betancuria, Fuerteventura.jpg
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
  •  Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 13:50, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Info I tried to create an "OPEN-AIR-DILIFF "  ;-)
      • Well I'm flattered that you've used me as inspiration but you know my images are stitched and HDR tone mapped, right? I'm guessing from the image quality here that you haven't done that - the right side is quite soft and the shadow detail is quite noisy... Diliff (talk) 14:24, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • It is a stich of several HDR-Photos. As the church is not a cathdral, the walls and pillars were only a few meters from the camera. That's the reason, that especially the right part had to be massivly streched to get rechtangular lines. This stretching caused some unsharpness. I tried to avoid this stretching, but then the result was always bended lines. BTW, I nominated this picture not because of excellent technical work, but more in honour of you and your work. --Llez (talk) 15:00, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • Ah ok, I can see a stitching error on the left side of the image now, I hadn't noticed that it was stitched before... Well, I'll accept the image as it is, although I'm surprised to see so much noise in the shadows if it is HDR. Did you take a bracketed image that was correctly exposed for the shadows? I get unsharpness at the edges of my wide stitched images too, although I can minimise it by downsampling a bit and still maintain good resolution. Diliff (talk) 16:21, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • Each single photo was taken three times (EV -0,62, 0.00, 0,75). The Raw-files (Canon *.CR2) were combined to a HDR by using "Easy HDR". From the differnt editing versions I chose the version "natural", for it had the most natural result, with the exception, that the shadows were a bit bright. All other versions (like "default", "enhance", "dramatic"...) had a lesser natural result. So I got 14 single HDR-photos, which I tried to stitch. The problem was, that the pictures covered more than 180 dregrees in horizontal and more than 90 degrees in vertical direction in a very short distance. Therefore the pictures differed severely in the direction of originally vertical and horizontal lines. I tried to stitch the photos to a panorama using "Photomerge Panorama", "Microsoft ICE", and "Hugin". Several trials whith each programm failed, there were massive stitching errors (not correctable), until finally one trial with "Hugin" was successful. I then tried to restich the panorama again with "Hugin", trying to get possibly a better result, but I failed again. So I had more then 10 stiching versions from 3 different Programs, but only 1 was acceptable. BTW: I made many panoramas of landscapes (see my other panoramas) but I never hat these difficulties. If anybody has experience with such extreme wide-angle-short-distance panoramas, each hint for improvement is appreciated. --Llez (talk) 05:53, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
              PS: Concerning the comment of Tomascastelazo: In the early morning and in the evening, the complete interior is in shadow (caused by the walls). Only if the sun is high, you have light inside. So you must decide between a motive completely in shadow with soft light, or some light inside with midday-light. --Llez (talk) 06:06, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
              • I think the bracketing you used was insufficient for the scene. In fact, the bracket of -.62 to +.75 is actually tiny, your three images combined actually have less dynamic range than a typical modern Nikon sensor, which has an extra 2 stops of dynamic range compared to Canon sensors. To justify the additional work of HDR bracketing, you would need a bracket of approximately -2EV, 0EV and +2EV). For my interiors, I often use 5 bracketed exposures of -6EV, -3EV, 0EV, +3EV and +6EV! So I think this is part of the cause of the problems with the noise in the shadows. Also, combining the images into a tone mapped HDR before stitching can be a problem, because each segment is processed differently, and that can make it difficult to blend the images together. It doesn't look like it was a problem in this case, but it's not the ideal workflow because of the potential for blending problems. If you are having problems stitching wide angle shots like this, it's usually either because there are no good control points to match in each image (perhaps because of the lack of details in the scene, or because you haven't given it enough overlap to work with), or because you have shifted the viewpoint of the camera as you rotated it. You didn't mention if you shot the images hand-held, on a tripod or on a tripod with a panoramic head. With the first two, you will most likely have parallax errors, which will give most stitching software problems. Perhaps you haven't had this problem in the past because with landscapes, the distances to the subject is usually much larger and parallax is less of a problem. With wide angle images, you are usually much closer to the subject and any minor shift in position will be more noticeable. Anyway, I hope these suggestions help. Wide angle HDR stitching is not easy. There are a lot of ways it can go wrong. Diliff (talk) 12:20, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done Stitching error removed --Llez (talk) 09:00, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • LivioAndronico talk Where I live there are many colonial ruins like this, so for me they are pretty normal. In this picture, however, I would have chose another time of day, the light does not favor it. Again, I do not find attractive visual elements. As for the historical significance, perhaps the description would need to be added, for that is also a criteria of evaluation. At this point, to me, and it may be my ignorance, it is just another ruin. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 19:18, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Info Concerning the historical value: The Convento de San Buenaventura was the first oversea monastery. In 1416 pope Benedikt XIII. sent 7 Franciscan monks to Fuerteventura for the evangelisazion of the Canarian natives. Because of their sucessful work, the signeur Diego García de Herrera enlarged the monastry on own costs and he wanted to be buried in the monastry after his dead (1485). After the secularisation in the 19.th century, it fell into ruin. (I added this information also in the image caption).
Concerning the shadows, see my comment above --Llez (talk) 09:20, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Convento_de_San_Buenaventura_-_Betancuria_-_Fuerteventura.jpg&oldid=160257308"