Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Roskilde Station 2015-03-30-4761.jpg

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

File:Roskilde Station 2015-03-30-4761.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Apr 2015 at 12:45:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Roskilde Station
  •  Info Roskilde station is the oldest railway station in Denmark for the first railway connection in Denmark between Roskilde and Copenhagen. The station was opened on June 26, 1847, while construction of the main building was still ongoing. In 1848 it was finished as well. In 1998 the railway station was resturated such that today the colors on the facade are identical to original building. The architectural elements are believed to have references to Villa Borghèse in Rome. Created, uploaded and nominated by Slaunger -- Slaunger (talk) 12:45, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- Slaunger (talk) 12:45, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral Partially overexposed, partially blurred (slight DOF-problems). But an very interesting perspective, well resolved and a friendly overall view. --BlackIceNRW (talk) 13:10, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • @BlackIceNRW: : Thanks for your review. Regarding your assessment that it is 'partially overexposed', would you care to elaborate what you mean by that? If I look at the historgram of both the original raw, and the uploaded version, where shadows have been lifted, I see a histogram in Lightroom which is in fact very far from having any kind of clipping in the histogram. The histogram has a smooth tail going to zero at maximum brightness. -- Slaunger (talk) 15:29, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hello Slaunger, the mentioned program is a good tool, but I am relying at least on my eyes (as you surely too). The photo was taken on March 30th at 17:32 at sunset. The light comes from the top right. Some small areas that are illuminated with this "hard" light, are displayed in a blinding light, that I find slightly overexposed. For example, the side door of the rather dark car on the right hand side or the woman with the bag in the front. Her face and hair seem to merge themselves. But I judge here at the border of Perfectionism, possibly even of the Grotesque. Overall, the picture looks realy good for me, but under the bottom line it is not perfect for me. The selected time of day and the associated lighting conditions could be better. The same picture at a different time of day ... and the picture will get my voice. Nevertheless: For these lighting conditions really a good picture! --BlackIceNRW (talk) 19:20, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • @BlackIceNRW: Thank you for taking your time to elaborate. Yes, I do understand the point about a perceived-by-eye overexposure not seen in a histogram, and I understand the lightening details you mention with the woman and the car. I just wanted to check it was not an issue with your viewing equipment. One thing I do not quite understand though is your mentioning of hard light at 17:32 at sunset (it is actually 17:12 as is evident on the clock, but that is a detail, my camera clock is apparently not entirely correctly set). I think that this time of day at this time of year is very good for photography at this latitude. The light is getting soft and pleasant, but not yet 'reddish', and the shadows are still so short that neighbouring tall obstructions do not cast shadows on the main subject. But still, there are a lot of shadows on the building, and I have had to lift the shadows quite a bit to soften up the dynamic range. Maybe it is these shadows, that you refer to as being the root cause of the 'hard lightening'? (I have no objection to your vote, just curious to understand your observations). -- Slaunger (talk) 19:48, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • @Slaunger: The issue with the shadow is undoubtedly significant. As an example, the above mentioned woman: Here, I believe that through the interplay of blur in the shadow area (caused by the movement of the woman and the glaring light) and "hard" light from the right side, the result does not look perfect. Maybe also the exposure time with 1/320 sec was a little too long to make a better capture of the woman. But I do not want to lose in detail here. Looking at the whole picture, the exposure time is certainly well chosen. Ultimately, I still believe that the light conditions and slight problems with the depth of field (largely regardless of lighting) are the main reasons for my inner skepticism in the detailed view. But I'm sure, with a view of the whole picture you can argue about it and other friends of photography see this different anyway. --BlackIceNRW (talk) 08:01, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support The framing is tight, and there's some softness issue on the borders (strange?). Some chroma noise, probably as a result of strong shadows recovery, and strange haloing around the bench on the left... but I like the lighting a lot, and enough to support it. - Benh (talk) 18:34, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Benh: Thanks for your (always) useful review. I have uploaded a new version, which tries to address some of the issues you raise. You are correct shadows have been lifted quite dramatically, and this has introduced some chroma noise. I have increase chroma NR from 25 to 33 in Lightroom, as I found it did no noticeable harm to the detail level. I have also worked on the weird bench halo you mention, and finally I have decreased exposure by 0,11 EV, as there were a few burned spots. -- Slaunger (talk) 18:52, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • As far as I know and as of 2015, Canon DSLRs suck (sorry) with dynamic range. Recovering dark areas is often not a good idea. But Lightroom seems to be a bit clever. The amount of NR looks to be related to how much an area was brightened up. If anyone can confirm or not... So yes, in my opinion, you did well to increase chroma NR in this case. - Benh (talk) 20:10, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm sorry, but after scrutinizing, I barely see any difference, excepted the decrease of exposure. Do I miss something ? - Benh (talk) 20:42, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Benh: : That's OK. The 0.1 EV change is subtle, but visible. You have to look carefully to see any difference due to the increased chroma NR, and the repair on the bench halo is not a removal of the halo, but it is less prominent now. But the new verions is actualy different (promise). -- Slaunger (talk) 20:49, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Correct remarks for DoF by BlackIceNRW but good enough. --Mile (talk) 11:39, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral Nice image, some minor technical problems though. --Tremonist (talk) 13:35, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Code (talk) 16:33, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Always Clin--Lmbuga (talk) 16:00, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- Christian Ferrer 18:46, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Hubertl (talk) 19:04, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- Pofka (talk) 21:14, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Sorry, but I do not think that the image stands out from normal photos of comparable buildings. The light is okay, but not special. The field curvature issues have already been mentioned and are quite significant. You probably couldn't do much about the plants, but the lamppost that almost leaves the image is a bit distracting to me. Overall a nice QI, but no FP for me. --DXR (talk) 10:25, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Agree with DXR and in addition I have to say that the lack of sharpness on the left is also an issue Poco2 08:05, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 8 support, 2 oppose, 2 neutral → featured. /KTC (talk) 21:04, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Roskilde_Station_2015-03-30-4761.jpg&oldid=158422522"