Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Nr Vorupoer 2013-12-29 1 cropped.jpg

File:Nr Vorupoer 2013-12-29 1 cropped.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jun 2014 at 21:24:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Nr Vorupoer 2013-12-29 1 cropped.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Nr Vorupoer 2013-12-29 1 cropped.jpg

•  Info all by Slaunger -- Slaunger (talk) 21:24, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
•  Info I have a photo taken two years earlier at the same spot under almost identical conditions, but I prefer this one. The light was very special, and I have not done any postprocessing, except a crop to improve the composition. --Slaunger (talk) 21:24, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
•  Support -- Slaunger (talk) 21:24, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:34, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
•  Support -- Saffron Blaze (talk) 22:18, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
•  Oppose, unfortunately. Foreground is very out of focus. Daniel Case (talk) 04:31, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

  Indeed!: It is an intentional effect in order to draw the attention to the walking couple, which is surrounded by "walls of waves". . --Slaunger (talk) 08:18, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

OK, but I don't think you needed to do that ... the viewer IMO would be drawn to the couple regardless of how focused the foreground is. And what's the EV here, anyway ... artistically it's great, but how might this be useful in telling us something about this particular beach, or the aesthetics of photography under these circumstances? Daniel Case (talk) 04:55, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the interesting question of value, I have a lenghty response to that on the talk page of the nomination. --Slaunger (talk) 10:00, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

• I literally did a facepalm when I read the oppose. Saffron Blaze (talk) 14:48, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

•  Support wonderful mood --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:06, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --Qwertz1894 (talk) 09:38, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
•  Support -- A marvelous picture! The relatively poor image quality is well mitigated by the magic mood and ecellent composition. This is what a FP is about! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:28, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Nice to get such support from an oceanographer and seascape affectionado! You have your Porto Covo FP factory, I have Nørre Vorupør!--Slaunger (talk) 17:42, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
•  Oppose No wow for me, sorry. --Graphium 17:45, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
•  Oppose nice mood, but not FP for me. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 19:07, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
•  Support - Caecilius Mauß (talk) 21:30, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --Christian Ferrer (talk) 15:59, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
•  Support But close to neutral. Very nice scene but the image quality is not as good as it could be with some raw editing. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 16:45, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

  @Julian Herzog: Thanks for your advice. I have the raw. What kind of edit did you have in mind? --Slaunger (talk) 18:18, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

  I would guess that the standard processing of most RAW converters already improve the image. But my idea would be a little more colour noise reduction, a little less key noise reduction and fixing the chromatic aberration that is quite visible on the birds. Everything beyond that is a matter of taste I guess, and not really necessary as the atmosphere is very good. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 21:03, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

•  Support Captures the mood very well.--Godot13 (talk) 20:22, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
•  Support Good. --Laitche (talk) 23:15, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
•  Oppose Nice and moody image of sunset at the beach... Sorry. Good image, but no FP. Kleuske (talk) 09:24, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

  @Kleuske: That's OK. For me, it is actually more about the couple in a wide space, but I acknowledge that different people see it differently. And the oppose leaves some exitement back for the final result . --Slaunger (talk) 18:18, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

•  Info @King of Hearts: , @Saffron Blaze: , @Daniel Case: , @Alvesgaspar: , @Graphium: , @Alchemist-hp: , @Caecilius Mauß: , @Christian Ferrer: , @Julian Herzog: , @Godot13: , @Laitche: , @Kleuske: Julian Herzog had a point in making a new raw development, especially for correcting the CA. So I have uploaded a new version. I also applied a little more chroma noise reduction, changed the white balance from 'auto' to 'cloudy', fixed color distortion and various other minor tweaks. I think the changes are all improvements, but here is a heads up if any of you reviewers object or if the changes triggers you to alter your review. If you are just silent, I assume the edit has not given rise to any change in your vote on the candidate. Thanks. --Slaunger (talk) 20:07, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

• I can understand the corrections for CA and chroma noise, but the other changes have altered the mood of the image sufficiently such that I find a real preference for the warmer lighting and colour of the original. I won't change my vote as it is still a fine image. Saffron Blaze (talk) 23:29, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
• Always ok for me --Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:37, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
• The quality issues are much better now, thanks. The WB doesn't feel that different to me, although I would have probably kept it at the cooler setting. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 09:14, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

•  Info @Julian Herzog: , @Saffron Blaze: The change I had made in the white balance was also one where I was in doubt myself if the original 'auto' setting was actually better, and since you both prefer the original white balance, I have now changed back to 'auto' in my raw converter, converted a new jpg and made the same crop and uploaded it. --Slaunger (talk) 17:43, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

•  Support --Claus (talk) 08:07, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 06:14, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural