Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Aurora borealis above Lyngenfjorden, 2012 March.jpg

File:Aurora borealis above Lyngenfjorden, 2012 March.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Jun 2012 at 12:11:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Aurora borealis above Lyngenfjorden, 2012 March.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Aurora borealis above Lyngenfjorden, 2012 March.jpg

•  Info Aurora borealis running across the sky above Lyngen (fjord) after midnight in 2012 March. Created, uploaded & nominated by Ximonic -- Ximonic (talk) 12:11, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Abstain -- Ximonic (talk) 12:11, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Support The picture is imo technically excellent (maybe just a bit dark). ISO 1600 and f/3.5 is very good choice for night shots, with long exposure times. But you also have a good sensor, wide angle lens, and you had enought light, which allowed you to achieve low exp. time, resulting in a beautiful starry sky with no startrails. Nice compo with not too much water. Noise not even bad. Good, very good job. And WOW man! Congrats and thanks for sharing this. --Paolo Costa (talk) 14:07, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Support Agreed with Paolo. Yann (talk) 16:14, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Support big wow. I wish I had such an opportunity. - Benh (talk) 16:25, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

•  Oppose I think it should be brightened, as per the below alternative (not the pinkish one) - Benh (talk) 17:59, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

•  weak oppose:Looks grainy/has compression artefacts. I'm not sure about either but it just doesn't look sharp.--Gauravjuvekar (talk) 17:45, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
• I tried to make a complete rework from RAW. I think it cannot improve very much from this. There should be only slight camera grain which might be difficult to remove completely because many details might get lost. Of course this is very different thing than capturing stuff in bright day light. One should take that in concideration. Every setting is a compromise to something. --Ximonic (talk) 20:12, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

  Sadly, it is not possible to make everyone happy in photography. I think the image was fine as it was. Night photography is usually about night sky. I remember reading in some book "don't get detail syndrome when shooting night sky". High ISOs are usually recommended (normally above 1000), as well as f/3.5, sacrificing some detail while applying some noise reduction. In my point of view the aurora is the subject in this pic. Auroras are difficult to see even in clear nights, and high ISOs are mandatory, as well as big apertures. The lake just adds that something to the framing, don't think it's important (neither possible) to show everything sharp in this kind of shots. But then, photography is a very subjective art. --Paolo Costa (talk) 14:03, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

•  Support --Tamba52 (talk) 04:55, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Support -- Colin (talk) 07:37, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Support Tomer T (talk) 10:41, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

* Support The photo in itself is really good, has immense wow effect and, to be fair, there are redeeming conditions (darkness etc) that probably mean that absolutely perfect quality is rather difficult ot achieve. 178.36.143.22 16:32, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

• • please log in to vote, anonymous votes are not allowed.--Jebulon (talk) 23:38, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Support -- Jkadavoor (talk) 05:24, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Alternative

•  Support (modified by auto levels in PhotoShop) Soerfm (talk) 14:27, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose Certainly not. Autolevels very rarely improve a picture. Yann (talk) 16:14, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose Please don't adjust levels on a JPG. It never works well. Colin (talk) 07:37, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Comment sorry for the ignorance, but maybe you can explain exactly what is wrong with that alternative and with auto levels? Tomer T (talk) 08:51, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

• For me this version looks somewhat too reddish. I wanted to take special care of the white balance because I guess many of you haven't witnessed northern lights yet. So as I've seen them several times I want to give you the idea of the actual colors and brightness. Although the auroras can be very dim and very bright, also red as well. If you want to photograph them you should travel atleast as far as polar circle. (But I'd rather suggest to go further north because the probability of seeing them increases greatly.) This phenomenon is certainly not rare - it happens all the time but you only need luck with the bright ones. --Ximonic (talk) 09:12, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

• • Too much contrast, too reddish. Yann (talk) 06:44, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Alternative 2

• This is the PhotoShop levels version, colors are the same as the original. Soerfm (talk) 10:20, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Support Tomer T (talk) 22:26, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose Too much contrast. Yann (talk) 06:44, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose It looks more appealing than the original (can't understand the too much contrast comment above), but it should be done by author itself because I think noise is a tad too visible now.. - Benh (talk) 17:58, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose But I think the educational value lacks because the phenomenon is not very natural looking here. So it can mislead people who haven't experienced these things even if some may think it looks more aesthetic this way. --Ximonic (talk) 00:28, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:33, 3 June 2012 (UTC)