Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Vista de Tarazona, España, 2015-01-02, DD 45-47 HDR.JPG
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:Vista de Tarazona, España, 2015-01-02, DD 45-47 HDR.JPG[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Oct 2015 at 16:09:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
Info Blue hour HDR view of the old town of Tarazona and Queiles river, Aragon, Spain. The outstanding tower belongs to church of St Mary Magdalene, built in the 12th century. The tower was reconstructed in the 15th century (Mudéjar style) and 17th century (Mannerist style). All by me, Poco2 16:09, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Support -- Poco2 16:09, 22 October 2015 (UTC)- Support --Ivar (talk) 16:27, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- Support --Kadellar (talk) 17:27, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Oppose Because I dislike the water, sorry.--Jebulon (talk) 19:33, 22 October 2015 (UTC)- Support Because I like the water. -- Wolf im Wald 21:51, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose sorry, das ist mir zu viel HDR, unnatürlich. --Ralf Roleček 22:07, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose Nice colors, nice mood, and you improved it over what you had originally uploaded. But despite the strong verticals in the image it still seems to me like a horizontal image is fighting to get out. Daniel Case (talk) 04:09, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose The bell tower seems to have the same window on all four sides. So at least for the top window you should be able to look through the tower. Hence, the window behind the bell should have about the same blue color as the sky around the tower. Looks like maybe the HDR algorithm got confused by the metal mesh visible here? Also, the water looks more like tar or an oil spill. --El Grafo (talk) 08:05, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
- El Grafo: I understand what you say but I don't share your expectation about how it should look and that it is a problem of the sensor. I could easily edit it and "fix" the problem, but you cannot compare a daylight shot with a night shot because the room where the bell is located is strongly illuminated and this does affect the resulting color of the background Poco2 17:52, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
- Mmmh, yeah, I guess you've got a point there. But I'm still not really convinced by the HDR as a whole. As Ralf said in German, it looks a bit too unnatural. I don't have much experience in processing HDR myself, so I can't really put my finger on it, though. Maybe it's just a bit too bright for a night scene (especially the sky)? --El Grafo (talk) 18:47, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry, because I like the mood, but I agree very much with Ralf and Daniel. --Tremonist (talk) 12:48, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Comment To be honest, I've no clue how I could have taken or processed this picture in a way that you would have supported it, guys. The water looks they way I would expect for a small current with a long exposure. Regarding the fact that it is a portrait, I could offer a landscape version (see here, is it FP-worthy?!) but the problem seems to be rather the usage of HDR in a scene that actually needs HDR, because the dynamic range was notable. Poco2 16:24, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
- That other image isn't from quite the same spot, and it's cropped really tight on the right. But I could see something more like that coming out of that night. Daniel Case (talk) 05:28, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Support I like long exposure shots and the effect on the water. And this one has a nice composition on top of it. Wonder about WB, but it's always tricky on night shots. - Benh (talk) 17:06, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
- Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 18:42, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose. What HDR processing are you using now Poco? You know I've said in the past that I didn't think your processing was ideal (exposure blending using tufuse?) but I think you've started using Lightroom HDR merge now? Anyway, regardless, I agree with other opposers generally. The water probably does look 'correct' for the exposure length but it does look a bit unnatural and strange. The ripple effect must be the result of something under the water causing turbulence. Also, in addition to the strange sky through the bell tower, there also seems to be a ghost edge on the right side of the tower, just above the roofs. Other parts of the image seem a bit low in contrast. It's hard to say one single thing is the reason for the oppose, it's just the collection of lots of little problems that make it not FP for me. Diliff (talk) 23:03, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
- I re-read the thread with El Grafo and I think the mesh would explain the brighter patch in the window through the tower due to the illumination, as you said. There are still the other issues though. Diliff (talk) 08:49, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Also, I had another think about how to explain the issues that I regularly see in many of your HDR images (and perhaps others too, although I don't want to speak for them). Some of the images seem to be missing a bit of contrast. I had a look at the histogram for this image and there is empty space on the left side. In some situations, this would probably be a good thing because it means you've avoided black clipping, but it can also mean that by using HDR, you've preserved every single pixel of shadow detail and that isn't always what the scene needs, particularly a night scene where there should naturally be very dark shadows. Just because you can show the full dynamic range in mid-tones, that doesn't mean you should. A small amount of black clipping is often a good thing. I think this image could benefit a little from increasing the black point or contrast. I had a quick attempt on my computer and I think the result was slightly improved, with the buildings looking a bit less washed out and more natural looking. You could either apply it globally or 'paint' extra contrast where it needs it using using an adjustment brush in Lightroom. Just some thoughts that might help in future. Diliff (talk) 09:11, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Diliff: thanks for your comments. Yes, I have started to use, in addition to Enfuse (blending procedure), the HDR algorithm of Lightroom and I decide then which one of both looks better and (actually, also) more natural. That it is not convenient to lighten up the shadows too much to get rid of the black clipping is clear (washed out result, lack of contrast), that has never been my modus operandi. Still, I agree with you that in this case there was some improvement (see
new version, please, let me know what you think). In this particular case I opted for the Enfuse version, as the HDR looks more unnatural, although in this case the difference between both is not as much as in other cases. Poco2 12:29, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Hi Poco, sorry I didn't get back to you before you withdrew, but in any case, yes I think the updated image looks a bit better. It's still not the most attractive composition for me though so I probably wouldn't have supported it, and there is still a ghost-like line on the right side of the tower, although I can see that it might be a rope or netting as it seems to come from a pole at the side? Strange anyway but maybe it was really in the scene. I would also suggest that you make extra sure that your camera isn't moving/shaking at all in your HDR work because sometimes I think I see some blurriness that might be because the different HDR frames were not aligned perfectly. With such a high res camera, you need to take extra care with stability. It's not a major problem in this scene but it does reduce sharpness a bit perhaps. If you don't already, shoot with mirror lock up / live view as the shutter vibration is much less than if the mirror slaps. Anyway, just something to think about in the future. :-) Diliff (talk) 09:28, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- Diliff: thanks for your comments. Yes, I have started to use, in addition to Enfuse (blending procedure), the HDR algorithm of Lightroom and I decide then which one of both looks better and (actually, also) more natural. That it is not convenient to lighten up the shadows too much to get rid of the black clipping is clear (washed out result, lack of contrast), that has never been my modus operandi. Still, I agree with you that in this case there was some improvement (see
- Also, I had another think about how to explain the issues that I regularly see in many of your HDR images (and perhaps others too, although I don't want to speak for them). Some of the images seem to be missing a bit of contrast. I had a look at the histogram for this image and there is empty space on the left side. In some situations, this would probably be a good thing because it means you've avoided black clipping, but it can also mean that by using HDR, you've preserved every single pixel of shadow detail and that isn't always what the scene needs, particularly a night scene where there should naturally be very dark shadows. Just because you can show the full dynamic range in mid-tones, that doesn't mean you should. A small amount of black clipping is often a good thing. I think this image could benefit a little from increasing the black point or contrast. I had a quick attempt on my computer and I think the result was slightly improved, with the buildings looking a bit less washed out and more natural looking. You could either apply it globally or 'paint' extra contrast where it needs it using using an adjustment brush in Lightroom. Just some thoughts that might help in future. Diliff (talk) 09:11, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- I re-read the thread with El Grafo and I think the mesh would explain the brighter patch in the window through the tower due to the illumination, as you said. There are still the other issues though. Diliff (talk) 08:49, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination Poco2 11:16, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
