Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Elcapitanclimbers.jpg

File:Elcapitanclimbers.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Nov 2017 at 23:37:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Elcapitanclimbers.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Elcapitanclimbers.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Sports OR Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
•  Info Lights of Climbers staying over night in the wall of El Capitan as seen from Yosemite valley. I only realized by seeing the lights late after dark that the routes take several days for most climbers. I think this picture nicely illustrates the climbing section of the article and provides a unique view on climbing in the valley. Created by C-M - uploaded by C-M - nominated by C-M -- C-M (talk) 23:37, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- C-M (talk) 23:37, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Beautiful, but I don't think it enters the sports category --Prismo345 (talk) 01:34, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
•  Support but should really just be Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural, the climbers are barely visible. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:19, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:36, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
•  Comment It is an interesting capture and subject. However the mountain and lights are not sharp -- either the focus was more on the trees or the camera moved slightly in the long exposure. Your other shot (File:Elcapitanclimbers-2.jpg) is sharp and the camping climbers are even visible in places, though it doesn't have the starry sky. Perhaps a slightly stopped-down aperture would have helped along with increased ISO. I think I'd probably support the #2 even though this one catches the eye more in thumb. -- Colin (talk) 08:42, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
• Per Colin. I'd prefer #2 - also for the visually highly interesting verticals (trees...) --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:14, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Enchanting. It's the little lights matching the star constellations and the harmonious cliff/sky color that make this scene, "...on earth as it is in heaven". --cart-Talk 09:20, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
•  Comment Just to make it even harder to decide I added a third version, this times in landscape. I agree that the sharpness of #2 is slightly better and I also like the structure of the trees - but, and that is the reason why I prefer this one: they diminish the actual size of the wall as the trees seem to have the same hight. However, if there is a large majority for one of the other two pictures I am happy to change. --C-M (talk) 20:14, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
•  Comment Pinging Colin, Martin Falbisoner, Prismo345 and King of Hearts to let them know that alts are available. --cart-Talk 20:48, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Mile (talk) 07:53, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose Blurred. -- Colin (talk) 08:18, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
•  Support OK, I like this one too. Yes it's blurred a little but I think it best makes clear that the lights on the cliffs are its subject. Daniel Case (talk) 02:22, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
•  Support I like this one better than the other versions. The portrait version expresses the height better than the landscape variant. --Basotxerri (talk) 09:32, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose The third one is better. Yann (talk) 09:23, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose - Too purple, IMO, and not as sharp as I'd like. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:49, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Alt 2

•  Support I think there are two aspects to this. One is a night photo of the mountain, with stars and strange dots of light on the cliff face. Another is a photo documenting the night camps of climbers on this mountain. I think the second aspect is what fascinates us and raises this above any photo of stars and mountains, and is educational rather than just pretty. And it is only really this photo that is (a) sharp of the mountain itself and (b) clear enough to see several climbers in their light spots. The trees reaching for the sky are good, though I accept the argument above that they may give an impression the mountain is smaller than it is. I also wonder why the colour is so different in this one compared to the other two, shot within a few minutes of each other. There's much more of a purple/blue tint in the others, which seems artificial to me and this one seems more neutrally coloured (see both rock and sky). -- Colin (talk) 08:18, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the Color: I am currently switching from Lightroom 6 to Capture One as Adobe killed the stand alone License and I am not willing to rent my photo database software (but that is a discussion we should not get into here). This picture was the first picture I developed, still using Lightroom while the other two have been developed in Capture One which seems to have a slightly warmer, more magenta white balance as a default. As I didn't have the intention to have the two pictures side by side I never compared the two during development. Hence: I can match the color balance if needed, but I am hesitated to blow up the number of alts even more... -C-M (talk) 11:46, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

The first photo's EXIF seems to suggest it has been through both Lightroom and Capture One. Based on the colours, I'd say there's a problem with your Capture One setup. It really doesn't look natural to me. I see in Lightroom you use the "Adobe Standard" profile, which tends to be neutral if boring vs the "Camera standard" which emulates your camera brand's JPGs. I don't know if Capture One has an equivalent. Ideally I think you want your raw software to be neutral and any deviation from that to be a deliberate choice. -- Colin (talk) 15:04, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Colin, I imported the whole Lightroom database into Capture One which took over the exposure adjustment, crops as well as my keywords and ratings, hence Lightroom being mentioned as "History Software Agent" in the EXIF data. Capture One applied the Nikon D500 Profile which indeed has a different tone compared to the Adobe Standard. When I select "Adobe DNG File Neutral" I get a similar color to the one of Lightroom. --C-M (talk) 17:18, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

•  Oppose It may be sharper and all but frankly, I find all those trees blocking the veiw of the mountain a bit opressing, like you were looking up at all that glory from a pit down in a dark forest. --cart-Talk 09:42, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
•  Comment - As Colin says, this is the best of the 3, but I'm not sure I'm ready to support it. It's certainly sharper and has much more believable color, and the photographer has the artistic license not to use perspective correction on the trees but let them seem to converge. I would say it has wow, too; I'm just not sure how much I like it. I think I'd prefer a wider composition that's as sharp or sharper and doesn't have a purplish sky, but that's not an option in this nomination. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:58, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Alt 3

•  Support This is the best of the 3. --Yann (talk) 21:50, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
•  Support per Yann --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:09, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Mile (talk) 07:54, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
•  weak oppose Not as blurred as the first one, but not as sharp as the second and concerned the purple/blue tint is not as faithful as #2. -- Colin (talk) 08:18, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
•  Weak support This one could work too. --cart-Talk 09:45, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

• Striking ths. Better to focus on one. --cart-Talk 13:20, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

•  Support If I had to pick one it would be this one. Daniel Case (talk) 02:20, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- Wolf im Wald 14:20, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --fedaro (talk) 11:22, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
•  Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 11:27, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Colin. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:53, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /MZaplotnik^(talk) 08:13, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

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

The chosen alternative is: File:Yosemite night elcapitan climbers.jpg

•  Comment MZaplotnik Are you sure you have closed ths correctly? File:Elcapitanclimbers.jpg have 8 support. --cart-Talk 12:06, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

W.carter, by my count, yes. File:Elcapitanclimbers.jpg has 72% support ratio (8 supports, 3 opposes) while Alt 3 (File:Yosemite night elcapitan climbers.jpg) has 78% ratio (7 supports, 2 opposes). MZaplotnik^(talk) 13:07, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

MZaplotnik Ok, I see. Different way of counting and fine by me if no one objects. However, I see this a good example of why Alts should be avoided as much as possible. Thank you for closing. --cart-Talk 13:13, 16 November 2017 (UTC)