Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Kittywakes at Fjortende Julibreen, Krossfjord, Svalbard.jpg

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

File:Kittywakes at Fjortende Julibreen, Krossfjord, Svalbard.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Nov 2016 at 16:33:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Kittywakes in the ice
  • Dear King of, I tried my best, went back and increased the brightness. However, cranking it up, the background loses drama substantially. As a consequence I had to increase contrast, too, which led to an impression of overprocessing and too much chromatic noise on the grey feathers. Speaking of histograms, I see the values just in the right range here. Plus it was an overcast day. My apologies, but in this case I would like not to follow your valued criticism. --AWeith (talk) 09:30, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dear Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton, with all due respect, I disagree in a number of points: i) The scene is certainly not white as ice is almost never white on a misty day. It assumes all shades of bluish and greenish up to a number of greys; and this is the beauty of misty days in the arctic. ii)According to the histogram there is neither black nor white, agreed. However, the RAW histogram shows that all curves are plus minus bell-shaped with a rather narrow base, telling us that contrast had been low in the original scenery. Different exposures or camera settings did not change anything by the way. The scene is as it is, misty and low contrast but that’s its beauty. If you crank up the blacks and whites (I am using LR for ages and are very familiar with it) you'll get a totally artificial image with loads of posterization and loss of information, let alone increase in noise etc. Well, I think this is not the featured histogram but rather the featured pictures section, so I’ll refrain from exaggerating. iii) Tough scenarios don’t make pictures good but they are challenging to present them in the photo as they are. This is why my nomination here is meant to lack pitch blacks and glistening whites; it was a very quiet , misty day (with kittywakes as quiet as I never heard them before). It would be sad if you couldn’t follow my arguments but the advisor in the movie also said: There may be exceptions. Everybody here knows by now that I love exceptions if they lead to attractive results. Thank you again for your considerations, anyway. --AWeith (talk) 16:47, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • You really trying to convince me that the left one:[1] is what you saw at 12:00 on summer, and it's better?
"white", not white, two different things.
"loads of posterization and loss of information" I used the jpeg, and even with that, not happen any of those cases, you just need to control the tool.
It's dark, and you could raise by one stop the exposure, and mood do not change. One more thing, magenta, now look the picture...
-- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 19:51, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1) Have you ever been to the fjords of Svalbard and experienced the light there? Guess you didn't.
2) Are you really trying to convince us the right image that you worked out is improving the situation? Well, I am not as it is not what I saw.
3) Yes, its dark, if you wish, and I am not willing to raise the brightness, as it does not reflect the situation. I have many more photos of such scenery and I will keep presenting them in the light that I remember having seen.
4) Your argument to raise brightness by one step does not lead to the "blacks" and "whites" that you claimed initially. Your arguments are inconsistent here. So please let the other evaluators judge the image as it stands and put our discussion to rest. Thank you for this lively discussion. --AWeith (talk) 22:38, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"So please let the other evaluators judge the image as it stands and put our discussion to rest." = "Shut up, I F don't care!"
And: "Your argument to raise brightness by one step does not lead to the "blacks" and "whites" that you claimed initially."
As you are being rude, I will be nice as you: You know punctuation? Are two main arguments separated by one "." The first one is that you are not able to understand the histogram in the scene, and the second one is that it lacks b&w points; two different things related, but different.
I gave a alternative to keep the mood as you wish, low contrast, but brighter. Attack the problem of being dark, but not the white and blacks, as this change the contrast, the mood, as you wish.
And relax, this image will pass by politics and by "it's tough", "not a every day picture", your ego will be intact. However, we can see down below that you made the same mistake before, having two too dark images as FPC, and do not admit your fault... -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 07:06, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Question Mile, I thought, EV stands for educative value. This is obviously not meant here. What does it rather mean in your context? --AWeith (talk) 17:11, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • And in fact there are two (related) meanings in photography: I can shoot a scene which is 15 EV at +1 EV, at f/8, 1/250s, ISO 100 (which is the correct settings to expose a grey card at 14 EV). --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:08, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alt[edit]

  •  Info Brigthened version. Give shot a try.
  •  Support --Mile (talk) 11:12, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Question @AWeith what do you think about this "alt" version? --Alchemist-hp (talk) 12:01, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Alchemist-hp: I did the brightening after King of's request. It represents a very slight increase in brightness and contrast, and concomittant drastic reductions of noise - both luminance and chroma. I am not convinced by it and am positively surprised that Mile prefers it. Anyway, as there were already quite a few positive votes, I did not want to change anything. However, if you advise me to switch to the brightened version we could do that. Do I have to "ping" everybody now?--AWeith (talk) 13:44, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose, because AWeith wrote above that the scene didn't look this bright, and also because I just don't think it looks as good. Brightening calls excessive attention to the degree of unsharpness in the focus of the birds, whereas the lower light makes that gentler and easier for me to accept. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:00, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 13 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Mile (talk) 21:30, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds/Charadriiformes#Family : Laridae (Gulls)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Kittywakes_at_Fjortende_Julibreen,_Krossfjord,_Svalbard.jpg&oldid=212783546"