Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:CH.SG.Quarten.Murg 2022-06-16 Murgbach 7132 Orig-R 11K.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:CH.SG.Quarten.Murg 2022-06-16 Murgbach 7132 Orig-R 11K.jpg, not featured[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Aug 2023 at 06:49:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Switzerland#St. Gallen
Info created by Roy Egloff - uploaded by Roy Egloff - nominated by Roy Egloff -- Roy Egloff (talk) 06:49, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
Support -- Roy Egloff (talk) 06:49, 15 August 2023 (UTC)- Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:07, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
- Support — Chris Woodrich (talk) 21:04, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
Oppose The resolution is impressive, but I find the burnt-out highlights and strange margins in the lower area very disturbing.--Ermell (talk) 08:18, 16 August 2023 (UTC)- Oppose Per Ermell. Is this some kind of stacked image? it is a very low quality. Edges are burnt. I don't understand how it got QI. -- -donald- (talk) 10:57, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
- Info Yes indeed, this is an HDR photo. Four images with different shutter speed were merged into a single image. This shot was taken in low light conditions. Uploading this image in 11K Resolution was probably not the best idea. Maybe I should upload it again with a lower Resolution, for example with 2K or 3K. These strange margins or burnt edges will then probably be gone when you zoom to 1:1 (actual size) on the screen. -- Roy Egloff (talk) 22:25, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for the explanation. Could you try to make a HDR of one image only? Would be a pity to loose the image size. Even knowing when the camera can do 100 MPIX. This HDR was also to much for me, less could be better. And I think that RAW has enough potential. -- -donald- (talk) 11:27, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
- I have uploaded a new single-image for viewing. See my recent uploads. But I will not exchange it with the current HDR-image, because this one won the third place at a wiki contest. Apparently, the jurors liked it. -- Roy Egloff (talk) 21:43, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for the explanation. Could you try to make a HDR of one image only? Would be a pity to loose the image size. Even knowing when the camera can do 100 MPIX. This HDR was also to much for me, less could be better. And I think that RAW has enough potential. -- -donald- (talk) 11:27, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
Comment It is amazing that the richness of detail does not suffer with such a strong reduction. However, nothing changes in the burned-out highlights. Was the HDR created by the camera or on the computer?--Ermell (talk) 07:55, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
- The HDR was rendered by computer Software. -- Roy Egloff (talk) 10:24, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
Weak oppose The colours look a bit off to moss in reality. --SHB2000 (talk) 10:13, 17 August 2023 (UTC)- Oppose Colors (especially green shades) look unnatural. Sorry. --LexKurochkin (talk) 08:54, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- No problem Alexey. Thanks for voting! Next time I'll do better. -- Roy Egloff (talk) 14:19, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Moral support Agree about the highlights and the colours, but IMHO the result is still impressive and overall very good. --Aristeas (talk) 08:40, 22 August 2023 (UTC)- Support Although perhaps the blues on the water could be toned down a bit. I know this happens but it still doesn't feel right and it's easy to fix. Daniel Case (talk) 20:10, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose High resolution but oppose per Ermell and LexKurochkin -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:38, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 14:21, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
