Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Magenta G5 aurora over Tuntorp, Lysekil Municipality 11.jpg

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

File:Magenta G5 aurora over Tuntorp, Lysekil Municipality 11.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 May 2024 at 16:49:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Looking straight up into the magenta Aurora Borealis over Tuntorp, Brastad, Lysekil Municipality, Sweden
  • Auroras are not like most light sources we are used to. They are not constant, like when you photograph sunlight, lamps or the moon. Instead they move constantly and quickly (the link is a good real time video of a lively aurora), kind of like smoke in the wind. They pulsate and throb, one moment you can have a bright formation to your left and 1/4 sec later it can flicker out and a new pulse/ray/squiggle of light appear above or to the right, and this aurora was extremely lively. This random pattern makes it impossible to set the camera perfectly and there will be some posterization if you want to catch the best of these light shows. If you shoot an aurora, you have to take the good with the bad. Also, in this photo, not all variances in luminescence are are due to the aurora. Some of them are small thin clouds. The night started out cloudy, but they began to disappear so I could catch some of the aurora. The small clouds are easier to see in some other photos, like this taken on the same spot, but down towards the horizon. The whole series is in this category. --Cart (talk) 10:56, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not questioning the camera settings, those seem perfectly reasonable. Is posterization also present in the raw file? If so, the issue is indeed due to camera limitations and there is not much that can be done without misrepresenting the aurora. However, in my own pictures I can only recall a couple that showed posterization on the original image. In all other instances posterization was caused by something I did during editing (e.g., clipping channels) or exporting (e.g., choosing the wrong colour space, using too much JPEG compression). --Julesvernex2 (talk) 11:35, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My dear Julesvernex2, your prominent collection of cameras is so way, way, way much better than the two I have, so of course you don't have these problems. My aurora photos are actually among the least processed of all my photos. All edits on aurora photos from such an inferior camera will only make things worse, so I use a very light touch. But the camera is what it is, totally inadequate for professional night photos, but I like to photograph what I see anyway for my own amusement and for use on Wiki articles where the images look good enough at thumb and on the file page. I would never nominate any of my aurora photos here, but I've learned to play along if someone else does. Thank you for reminding me of my humble equipment and confirming that I made the right decision to not nominate my photos here any more, now that technology has moved forward and I haven't been able to follow. --Cart (talk) 12:13, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I offered my own experience as advice, which is a regular (and, in my opinion, useful) occurrence on these pages. I apologise if I have in some way offended you, take care. --Julesvernex2 (talk) 12:51, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not offended and I always appreciate advice, but there is simply not much I can do about my camera. It's like owning an old Saab and someone with a Ferrari is trying to give you tips on how to drive your old rust heap. ;-) You just feel stupid for parking next to such fab piece of machinery. I know my place, and it's outside this race track now. :-) --Cart (talk) 13:01, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The camera helps, but it doesn't make it all. The greatest pictures were taken with equipment way behind current technology. What's IMO most important is being at the right time at the right place, and having a bit of artistic genius or a human touch. And here you got it all, Cart! Yann (talk) 13:07, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Yann, that philosophy works excellently out IRL, but it does not apply to FPC. Remember that this community has snubbed some of the greatest photos and photographers through pixel-peeping and hard-liner tech talk. --Cart (talk) 13:13, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's one of the great failures of FPC. I guess that a number of Pulitzer prizes or National Geographic pictures may fail here. This doesn't reduce the greatness of the pictures. It only shows the limitations of our community. Yann (talk) 13:59, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cart's EOS 600D from Canon was one of the best in the entry-level class in terms of image quality, similar to my entry-level D3300 from Nikon. But I'm largely happy with it, and it's interesting to see the tried-and-true sensor used unchanged for the 2018 D3500. As Yann mentioned, it's always the photographer behind the camera that counts. The camera is just the tool, whether it's an old Saab or a Ferrari. I would also prefer a higher quality camera, but family commitments and a moderate income make investing in expensive camera systems almost unaffordable. If I may repeat my earlier statement at this point, many of Cart's images would, in my opinion, be worthy of inclusion in the FP Media Archive via the FPC nomination process. Thanks also to Julesvernex2 for the helpful hints and explanations. Just my two cents to this conversation. Best, -- Radomianin (talk) 20:28, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't get me wrong Radomianin, I love my old cameras. They are quite sufficient for my needs, but my needs don't include gathering FPs anymore. I've had my fair share of gold stars, and my little hoard is enough for me. I'm much happier just doing maintenance now and helping newbies here, so they don't stumble on some technicality. --Cart (talk) 05:10, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your appreciated efforts to assist talented newbies. By welcoming them with open arms, we show them the open-mindedness and tolerance propagated by the WMF, so that FPC does not appear to be an elitist club that they will leave in fright. -- Radomianin (talk) 05:54, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! Thank you for that compliment. That makes me blush with humble pride. :-) --Cart (talk) 16:32, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is an old template, Template:Wallpaper plus the corresponding categories 1 and 2, that was used in the days of phone modems when it was still not that common for sufficiently large photos to be uploaded on Commons. In those days, people normally didn't have photo editing programs either, so it was a "cool" thing for Commons to be able to provide wallpapers for digital devices. These days it is deemed obsolete (deprecated for 12 years!) since almost any new image uploaded is more than big enough to be used for computers/phones/whatever and people are totally capable of fixing their own wallpapers. ;-) --Cart (talk) 16:53, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- Radomianin (talk) 21:23, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Natural phenomena#Aurora
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Magenta_G5_aurora_over_Tuntorp,_Lysekil_Municipality_11.jpg&oldid=877988432"