Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:A591 road, Lake District - June 2009.jpg

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

File:A591 road, Lake District - June 2009.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Apr 2010 at 23:14:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The A591 road as it passes through the countryside between Ambleside and Grasmere in the Lake District, England.
  •  Info created and uploaded by Diliff - nominated by The High Fin Sperm Whale -- The High Fin Sperm Whale 23:14, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- The High Fin Sperm Whale 23:14, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oversaturated to my eyes. --99of9 (talk) 02:40, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hm, shadows look lifted too much. Looks somewhat unnatural to me. --Dschwen (talk) 03:44, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Overprocessed. —kallerna™ 16:21, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Opposeits not overprocessed, its a tonemapped image in my opinion. But i agree the saturation is too strong --Simonizer (talk) 17:01, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support A bit over saturated, but I still find this picture "attractive". Wonder what kind of processing was applied, certainly there was some sort of tone-mapping like treatment, or Diliff played a lot with curves, because shadow areas are noisy (not the typical canon 5D trademark...) and the sky dramatically blue (and I don't believe this comes from any kind of filters). - Benh (talk) 19:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, it almost seems like the typical Diliff trademark. I have beeen browsing through a lot of his images lately and it seems that this is his standard processing. If I understood correctly he works exclusively from RAW, and my guess is that the shadow lifting (or rather digital "fill light" which is standard in raw converters) is part of his regular work flow. The noise in the shadows can be seen in many of his pictures. --Dschwen (talk) 19:24, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't know which software Diliff uses, but I've recently been experimenting as well to get this kind of "pop" skies. My only successful way is to tone map from a single picture : you underexpose and overexpose from RAW to get the additional exposures. You can them feed enblend with these pictures. In the end, u get better results (IMO) and more details than if u play with curves yourself as RAW have 12bit/channel on the 5D (against 8 for normal tiff or Jpeg I think, and anyways, I can't do this in gimp, yet ?). My results looks similar to this, with noise in dark areas, and intensely blue skies with white clouds. Maybe Photoshop and whatever from Adobe, DxO... offer more possibilities... but I believe it would be just mimicking this workflow. If anyone knows ? - Benh (talk) 19:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yeah, this is one of the photos that I've never been 100% happy with, and was on the list of photos to reprocess. From memory I did exactly what Benh has described - except I used tufuse to blend the over and underexposed images, which isn't strictly tone mapping, but it's similar. The 'pop' of the sky is due to using a polariser filter, and it was undoubtably very green (late spring), but I think it's probably worth re-processing it and uploading a new image. Give me a bit of time. As an aside, sometimes the reason for the shadow noise in my images is not tone mapping or lifting the shadows too much. As you know, blown highlights are a pain, particularly in clouds in the sky, so I will often underexpose the photo in order to preserve those highlights. In order to then bring the rest of the image back to the correct exposure, you have to dig it out of the shadows, and that typically results in the noise. I think I've just overdone it on this image. Diliff (talk) 20:06, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Ok. This one is processed straight from Lightroom with no fusion involved. Fairly basic settings used actually. Virtually no saturation boost (+5 vibrance is all) so if you still think saturation is OTT, I politely disagree. As you can see, the left side wall is very underexposed, and the shadows are much deeper. Hope this is more to everyone's liking. Apologies for the first one being a bit crap. Dschwen, yeah, I do sometimes boost shadows (fill light) when the shadow detail is important, and as I said, I expose to minimise blown highlights, so sometimes this is necessary. Sometimes I get it wrong. Some photos require a revisit (or feedback) to notice the mistakes. :-) Diliff (talk) 20:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Yeah, I was not meaning to call this a mistake at all. I do the same thing with respect to under-exposure, and I like the results you get. I have been meaning to adjust my workflow to reproduce the lightend shadows, but often end up making my whole image dull. Guess global curves just doesn't cut it. I did experiment with enfusing multiple virtual exposure steps, but I guess I need more practice there. --Dschwen (talk) 21:36, 25 March 2010 (UTC) P.S.: Uhm, well for this picture did, just not the technique in general. --Dschwen (talk) 15:58, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm surprised you used a polariser filter as the effect seems even in the sky (one of the issues I often have is unevenness, which is even more pronounced when sun comes from aside, as this seems to be the case here), but this explains why the grass and trees are so green in my opinion. Any version looks good to me. I prefer bottom part from new version, but the sky from first one. - Benh (talk) 21:09, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Question Diliff, is what you do simlar to tufuse's auto bracketing feature or is it better to do it manually? --Muhammad (talk) 10:36, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative[edit]

Reprocessed.
Confirmed results:
Result: 11 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 09:16, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:A591_road,_Lake_District_-_June_2009.jpg&oldid=37264528"