Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Refugio Militar Capitan Cobo - Pico Veleta - Sierra Nevada - 2014-08-07.jpg

File:Refugio Militar Capitan Cobo - Pico Veleta - Sierra Nevada - 2014-08-07.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Sep 2014 at 06:21:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Refugio Militar Capitan Cobo - Pico Veleta - Sierra Nevada - 2014-08-07.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Refugio Militar Capitan Cobo - Pico Veleta - Sierra Nevada - 2014-08-07.jpg

•  Info created, uploaded and nominated by Slaunger -- Slaunger (talk) 06:21, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
•  Info The Refugio militar Capitán Cobo are barracks used by the Special Operations Command of Spain (Mando de Operaciones Especiales) for high altitude training. The barracks are located at an altitude of 2550 m in the Sierra Nevada mountain range. The road A-395 in front shows the last public section of the 38 km long access road from Granada leading to Pico del Veleta, the second highest mountain in Sierra Nevada (3394 m). This is also the highest paved road in Europe. A special thanks to Jebulon for showing me this place, and many thanks to Kadellar and Poco a poco for figuring out what was the purpose of the building. For quite some time, I thought it was a youth hostel, LOL! . -- Slaunger (talk) 06:21, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
•  Support -- Slaunger (talk) 06:21, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
• some parts of the building are good and sharp, others are soft and not really sharp. what has happend here? --Wladyslaw (talk) 07:00, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Wladyslaw: It is a stitch of four images. My kit lenses are not as good as I would like, and they produce soft results at image borders for certain focal lengths and apertures. (A prime lens is on my wish list). That results in an uneven image quality. The pic is close to 15 Mpixels, and I think the pixel quality is sufficient for FP given the pixelage. -- Slaunger (talk) 07:13, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
    • I am in the process of restitching, and I notice that the ueven sharpness is due to not all images having perfect focus. Luckily, there is a big overlap between images, and by using masking in PTGui, I can see that I can achieve a better technical result (and I should stop blaming my glass all the time, it is actually not that bad, when used correctly). -- Slaunger (talk) 21:31, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
•  Comment I like it very much and was ready to support but I got a bit disappointed by the fact that reading the "Todo por la Patria" is pretty annoying. Is there a way to combine those 4 frames to fix it? Poco² 11:20, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • @Poco a poco: I understand what you say, (I think). The first time I zoomed in I also thought: what an ugly stitching/blending error! Until I realized that the letters are suspended in a frame with space to the wall behind. And since the setting sun is coming in from quite an angle (thus the nice light elsewhere), the shadows gives the impression of ghost letters. See also the 'other version' linked to from the file page, which is a normal single shot photo. I think it would be wrong to clone put the shadows. Don't you agree?-- Slaunger (talk) 17:12, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
•  Info Jebulon has pointed out a stitching error on the file page. I would like to try and make a complete rework this evening, since I have acquired Lightroom since I made this stitch, and I would like to try my new LR plus PTGui workflow on this. --Slaunger (talk) 17:12, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
•  Info @Taxiarchos228: , Poco a poco, Jebulon. I have reworked the image completely in a Lightroom + PTGui workflow. Two (upper right and lower left) of four sources images are not perfectly sharp. Using masking in PTGui, the use of these images is now minimized, the three texts are now entirely clear. There is still some residual softness in lower left and upper right corners. I think it is not so bad, but understand if you find it unacceptable for FP. I did not quite get the same white balance in this process and have ended up with slightly more vivid colors of the roof and a darker sky, to be honest I am not sure, which one is closest to the truth. -- Slaunger (talk) 22:44, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
•  Comment Not quite sure it is FP overall, but wow that was a massive improvement in quality, well done! --DXR (talk) 05:23, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
•  Support FP to me Poco² 07:31, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
•  Comment small error(s) - a note i s addede. Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 10:39, 16 September 2014 (UTC) I must have had a look at an old cached, sorry, the note i deleted. Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 13:06, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
•  Comment Far much better, once old cache eliminated. You are not far from truth regarding the light if I remember well.--Jebulon (talk) 16:38, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
•  Support I like the light and the composition very much. --Kadellar (talk) 12:45, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
•  Support I preferred the colors of the previous versions, but FP anyway IMHO -- Lauro Sirgado^contribs 14:12, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
•  Support -- Christian Ferrer ^Talk 18:33, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
•  Neutral  Support I really like the composition, the lightning, the soft colors, and it might possibly be atypical enough to be a wow. I note some weird blurriness on the stones below the sign "refugio militar", is it due to the sitching? -- Christopher Crouzet (talk) 15:03, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • @Christopher Crouzet: : Thanks for your positive comments and also your observation about blurriness. I agree there is softness under that sign. If you read some lines above, I think I have also acknowledged this problem in my newest revision and explained the origin: It is not due to the stitch in itself, but is caused by the fact that not all source images have perfect focus. In the newest revision I have tried to minimize the presence of these soft areas, but they are not entirely gone, and it annoys me too. I had chosen autofocus, but should have gone for manual focus instead. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:01, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

• Sorry, I didn't read all the comments in depth, my bad. I find the picture more interesting than many other featured buildings out there, so no reasons to oppose. Thanks for your efforts! -- Christopher Crouzet (talk) 19:35, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

• Well, Christopher Crouzet you did not oppose, but voted neutral, which was very understandable given the actual quality issue you have observed. But I am of course happy you have chosen to reconsider and change to support. Thanks! - Slaunger (talk) 19:49, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

• Indeed, I meant to say “no reason to not support”! :) -- Christopher Crouzet (talk) 19:56, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

•  Support Jee 15:23, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
•  Support Good lighting, unusual subject. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:24, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Jee 14:50, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

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