Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Viborg Power Plant 2014-11-17-1.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:Viborg Power Plant 2014-11-17-1.jpg, featured[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Dec 2014 at 22:09:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info Viborg power plant in Denmark is in my opinion an architectural gem, when it comes to modern industrial buildings (and we have FoP for architecture in Denmark). I live nearby and I have photographed it from different angles, in different seasons and different times of day over several years. This summer I tried to nominate an early evening photo with little success. I was recommended to get a prime lens. I have gotten that since. Now, I have tried again, this time using the exact same workflow and tools (but not an equally fancy camera) as a certain well-known church interior photographer here;-) And I have tried to do a night shot using PTGui Pro to make an tone-mapped 32-tiff from a 1×3 pano in four different exposures using my new Canon EF 40 mm f/2.8 STM prime lens. Then tone-mapped exclusively in Lightroom - with faithful colors. I have previously attempted that back in 2010, but with much worse image quality than here and a far from optimal workflow. I have used the nominated pcture as a desktop background the couple of days, and I appreciate it more and more. What is expecially challenging is the extreme difference in brightness of the neon sign to the left and the very weak light hitting the sides of the building. I actually have two further exposures at 8s and 30s to dig even more into the structures of the dark shadows, but it creates such a dominant bloom and glare from the purple-blue neon light, that it becomes very distracting, and so dominant that I cannot find a way to tone-map it, which makes it useful to look at. Thus I have discarded those exposures after several different attempts to find a best compromise. Created, uploaded and nominated by Slaunger -- Slaunger (talk) 22:09, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- Support -- Slaunger (talk) 22:09, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- Support--Jacek Halicki (talk) 22:24, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- Support Very good work, excellent result. Congrats. --Kreuzschnabel 05:12, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:23, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- Support --Cayambe (talk) 11:10, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- Support - but why did you add a "watermark" ;-) Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 15:48, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- Comment Thanks for your support, Villy Fink Isaksen. "Watermark", you say - with a . Could you please enlighten me, what you are hinting at? I do not get it;-) -- Slaunger (talk) 18:03, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- Okay - I think you got it, I my self thought that the lighting text was a watermark. (jeg måtte se nærmere på det for at finde ud af hvad "watermark"et var) --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 19:00, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- Nåeh, nu fes den ind;-) -- Slaunger (talk) 20:42, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- Okay - I think you got it, I my self thought that the lighting text was a watermark. (jeg måtte se nærmere på det for at finde ud af hvad "watermark"et var) --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 19:00, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- Comment Thanks for your support, Villy Fink Isaksen. "Watermark", you say - with a . Could you please enlighten me, what you are hinting at? I do not get it;-) -- Slaunger (talk) 18:03, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- Question Have you corrected the perspectives, the vertical inside the power plants seems to leaning in, at least more than in this image where the verticals are also a bit leaning in. The image seems also a bit tilted on right. -- ChristianFerrer 06:23, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- Christian Ferrer. Thanks for your comment/question. The center line around the chimney is vertical as far as I can tell. You are correct that the verticals inside the plant (the ones on the windows are the only ones seen) converge inwards as you go up a bit. I tried to make them absolutely vertical, but the vertical field of view is so large that it results in a disproportionate looking geometry. Regarding the apparent tilt, I had a look at this for a long time when I perspective-corrected the image. The base landscape in the foreground is not horizontal but falls off to the right. I think this gives a visual, but wrong impression of a tilt. The fact that the power plant, which has a vertical mirror plane is not centered in the composition (because I wanted to include the neon sign) also results in some "mind tricks". -- Slaunger (talk) 22:23, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- Support agree with Villy Fink Isaksen. --Kadellar (talk) 11:06, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- Support Hehe, the "watermark" is really funny, but image is cool with it. Best regards --Chmee2 (talk) 18:32, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- Support --Hubertl (talk) 22:09, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
- Support · Favalli ⟡ 03:43, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- Support --Pugilist (talk)
Confirmed results:
Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 06:03, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Industry