Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Aerjalgne.jpg

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

File:Aerjalgne.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Feb 2024 at 17:36:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Copepod
  •  Oppose Very good screen. According to the metadata, exposure compensation was -4/3, and only +0.4 in post-treatement. 1 EV missing in my opinion -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:46, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The meta doesn't provide much information here. underexposure is used here on purpose. Otherwise, there would have been overexposed areas that would have negatively affected the result when the picture was assembled later. (focus stacking was used when taking the photo) 185.193.63.210 07:30, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It just gives a rational clue to understand the reason for this underexposure. Was it intentional? Alright. So probably blown highlights avoided on the RAW files. But in that case, the exposure should be corrected afterwards in post-process. Overall the result is currently too dark -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:44, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In general, I don't understand why you think the result is too dark. Maybe we see the result differently for some reason? Have you viewed the image on another device? When processing the image, I trust only my eyes (I don't track any numbers anywhere), and in my opinion, the image is not too dark.
    In addition, it must be understood that this is a microscope photo. When photographing with a microscope, controlling the light is extremely difficult. Classic microscope light is not used for this photo. This is reflected light coming from the side. The light source is the camera flash. The light is diffused by about 2mm of white plastic. 185.193.63.210 10:13, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  1. It's not difficult to set the exposure when the RAW files are correct, and I don't see why it would not be possible in this case. There are similar pictures with correct brightness nominated in the past.
  2. If you read the comments of this page, perhaps you'll realize that other people also notice the same issue. So please, stop insisting on my device, saying my screen is wrong. Maybe your version is darker than it should.
  3. It's just my two cents and subjective opinion. So deal with it and accept diversity. That's a way to improve. Regards -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:39, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm just trying to figure out why the image is seen as too dark. I take into account that there are people who see the picture differently. But I still stand by my opinion - the picture is not dark on my screen and for my eyes. 185.193.63.210 10:49, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes we see it. By the way, I did not check the metadata before writing my comment. This constatation is just supporting my initial impression. (That's for your "numbers".)
The fact you don't see it's dark does not mean that you are right. And reciprocally of course (but it's not my picture).
See also this recent nomination that was fixed yesterday.
Apart from under-exposure, I agree with Charles about the possible focus stacking error (see image note). Very visible when light is adjusted . The background is darker at this spot, and that's a bit weird.
To finish, I would recommend you to login, so that your comments are properly signed by you (apparently photographer), instead of an anonymous IP -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:14, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay! What are we arguing about, it's pointless 🙃 I can't stack again because I don't keep all the frames. When the photo is ready, I delete the frames used in the stacking, because it is digital garbage that does not make sense to keep. I can't change the light either, because I can process the image according to how my monitor shows it. The picture looks ok on my monitor. 185.193.63.210 12:30, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Proof that archived pictures are not garbage is that you can't fix an error when it's lost.
Discussions about light are not pointless at FPC. Read COM:I section Underexposure.
Once again, please log in because malicious IP sometimes have fun trolling nominations here.  Question Do you have a good reason not to use your personal account? Further comments may be reverted too, to avoid identity usurpation. Thanks for your understanding -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:58, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I take about 1000-1500 photos in assta, each photo takes 20-200 frames, the size of each frame is about 20mb. Archiving all this would take up a lot of space. The chance that some of the images will need to be corrected is extremely small. This particular photo is the first in 12 years. In light of all this, filling memory space with frames that are almost never needed seems like a pointless waste of resources.
And I had a reason why I wasn't logged in - it was just more convenient 🙃 I have my passwords secured so that it is difficult for a stranger (where I am at the moment) to access them. I now had to struggle a bit to access my password. Janeklass (talk) 13:19, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for signing in. Perhaps fixable on Photoshop or Lightroom -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:38, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the stacking error and added the light Janeklass (talk) 17:57, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not difficult to use external data storage or store data in the Cloud. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:56, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the stacking error and added the light Janeklass (talk) 17:54, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- Radomianin (talk) 21:14, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Aerjalgne.jpg&oldid=852102662"