Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Middelgrunden wind farm 2009-07-01 edit filtered.jpg

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

File:Middelgrunden wind farm 2009-07-01 edit filtered.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 30 Jul 2009 at 21:21:51
Middelgrunden offshore wind farm, Øresund, Denmark

  •  Info created, uploaded, edited, and nominated by Slaunger - further edits (color correction, dust spot removal) by Richard Bartz -- Slaunger (talk) 21:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Info When built in 2000, Middelgrunden offshore wind farm (40 MW) was the worlds largest offshore wind farm supplying 3% of the electricity for Copenhagen. Since offshore wind farms are raised on the most windy areas it is quite unusual to observe them in glossy sea as here. There was a special haze this warm summer day where the sky and the sea horizon was almost unseparable, which made the sight very unusual (for me at least). --Slaunger (talk) 21:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- Slaunger (talk) 21:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 21:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment - you missed a dust spot (2nd tower from the left, lhs, 1/3 way up)...... Support - Peripitus (talk) 21:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for noticing and reviewing my image. I see what appears to be a spot at the location you mention in the image page preview, but I cannot see it at all in full resolution (so I would not know how to fix it). Can you see it in full resolution? Maybe it is introduced by the sharpnening which is applied in the preview creation process? --Slaunger (talk) 21:40, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral Very nice composition, but could perhaps use even more color adjustment. Maybe something like this? (Note: I'm not nominating my version as an alternative, at least not yet.) Also, I suspect both versions could use some more tweaking to fix compression artifacts e.g. around the blades. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 22:05, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
     Comment I agree with you that your more colorful edit is more impressive and eye-catching, and in a previous version of the file I had a quite similar edit. However, I decided to go for a less drastic saturation, as these flashy National Geographic-like edits (this is not intended as criticism of you) are simply not being representative of the subject I am trying to illustrate. I think that since the WMF scope is to provide educational and informational content there is a point in not bending reality too much in trying to get something which looks nice and eye-catching. In the edit I have nominated Richard and I have bent reality to an extend where I still find it justifiable for illustrative and educational purposes. Of course other users may have different opinions or views on this, which I respect. --Slaunger (talk) 22:18, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
     Comment Comment concerning compression artifacts, I acknowledge that traces thereof are visible at the edge of the wings. I really do not know what can be done of that (or if anything should be done). I do not think it is visible at normal viewing resolutions/distances. The image was taken with "finest" jpeg resolution and I have saved intermediate edits in at least 93% jpeg quality (I do not know which quality Richard has used, but knowing his professionalism I would guess a quite high one as well). --Slaunger (talk) 22:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support, and I also think Ilmari's edit is very oversaturated. --Aqwis (talk) 22:55, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support A rather dreamy picture, almost looks computer generated. Nice work. --Calibas (talk) 01:12, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Downtowngal (talk) 02:35, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support per Calibas. Very surreal. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:52, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Awesome picture. My hat goes off to the photographer. -- JovanCormac (talk) 07:06, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Nice composition, but it's just too blurry (poor quality). —kallerna™ 09:31, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Info It is my understanding that the blur is caused by the aforementioned "haze", and therefore part of the scenery. -- JovanCormac (talk) 10:18, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Info The original taken with 1/500s exposure and f/20 is in my opinion crisp and clear and has a very good DOF, if you look at the edge structure of the wings and and the masts of the wind mills. The rest of the original has no clear structure, but that is due to the aforementioned glossy sea and haze. The original has other problems though, as it is quite noisy (despite ISO 100) and somewhat underexposed. In the following post processing further noise was visible following curves correction, and I was concerned that I would have to apply a too agressive noise reduction to bring it to a tolerable level - at the cost of loss of detail. In the end I did apply a rather aggressive noise reduction using Noiseware, but was positively surprised that I did not seem to loose noticeable details in the structure of the turbines. The sea looks very glossy afterwards and there is no clear separation between sea and sky, but that matches what I saw. I admit that a little detail has been lost in the finer details of the reflections of the wind mills at the lower edge of the image and at a few wing tips placed at the end of the curve, but that was the postprocessing compromise I made to reach the best end result. In hindsight I would have gotten a more optimal result if I had increased the exposure time for the original a tad when I took it and I respect if other reviewers find the non-optimal starting point has compromized the end result too much. --Slaunger (talk) 10:46, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Difficult to get shot + decent technique + interesting subject + informative value = fraturable picture. Simple. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 15:10, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose – It looks like more than just haze to me – f/20 may have caused some serious diffractions. From an image like that I expect a better quality and a little more crispness. --Ernie (talk) 08:35, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Karel (talk) 19:25, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --AlexAH (talk) 18:25, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Jklamo (talk) 20:11, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 12 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 07:31, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Middelgrunden_wind_farm_2009-07-01_edit_filtered.jpg&oldid=611859284"