Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ακρόπολη 6912.JPG

File:Ακρόπολη 6912.JPG, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Apr 2015 at 15:52:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Ακρόπολη 6912.JPG Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ακρόπολη 6912.JPG

•  Info An almost night view of the Acropolis of Athens from Pnyx (the darkest part of the photo has been removed). All by me -- C messier (talk) 15:52, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
•  Support -- C messier (talk) 15:52, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
•  Neutral Too dark below. --Tremonist (talk) 16:23, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
•  Neutral I would say better crop is required. There is too much black in the bottom. Furthermore, the upper fog surroundings aren't that interesting as well (but it's fine because it focuses your view into the Acropolis). I think more centered version would look way better. -- Pofka (talk) 16:25, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

•  Comment I can try to recover some detail from below from the raw. Pofka, you mean a further crop? --C messier (talk) 16:31, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

• Something like this: http://i.imgur.com/CtE4NwZ.jpg :) If it would be possible to recover some more detail from the bottom, then it would probably look even better. -- Pofka (talk) 16:48, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Agree with Pofka and his suggestion. But I'm afraid the subject itself is a bit soft.--Jebulon (talk) 16:50, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

 Done cropped No raw for this set (and only) - Merphy's law :P --C messier (talk) 17:37, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

•  Support now. I really like the way Acropolis is lightened here. -- Pofka (talk) 20:33, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

•  Oppose Looks very washed out as after too much highlight or shadow recovery. Some areas of the subject show almost no significant brightness changes. — Julian H.^✈ 20:30, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose Too big dynamic range to adequately capture with only one frame. Too dark foregorund and too many burned highlights. The illumination appers more white than what I can find from a Google image search for illuminated night shots. Also it is a bit too soft for my taste and there is a little fringing. For such a subject, shoot raw, try to combine several bracketed exposures to better catch the extreme dynamic range. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:03, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  •  Comment It's actually four frames merged into one. And it has more DR than most of the other images in the category, with much less blown highlights. --C messier (talk) 21:10, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
    •  Comment That information is worth adding to the file page, which has an exif indicating it is a single 6 s exposure. It is surprising that the end result does not exhibit a larger dynamic range when that is the case. May I ask how you have combined the exposures and how large the EV difference was? Do you still have the source images? It is my experience that you need a separation of 2 EV for four exposures with my entry level and not terribly new DSLR. There may be another optimum for your camera, which I am not familiar with.-- Slaunger (talk) 21:22, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Combined as descripted here (although the brightest was the base, because otherwise, the stars appear blacker than the sky), it 6s, 2,5s, 1/1,3s and 1/5s with same f, ISO and exposure compasation, and I have kept the original images.--C messier (talk) 21:29, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
      • @C messier: Thanks for the information. If my math is correct that corresponds to steps of around 1.2 EV, 1.7 EV and 1.95 EV, which is a slightly odd spread of the exposures, especially the span from 2.5s to 6 s is a little low (1.2 EV), but it should be fairly OK, I guess. I do not know how well the GIMP method described works as compared to other methods. If you are interested in sharing your source images I could try and have a go at it using PTGui to make a 32 bit floating point "super raw" tif and postprocess that in lightroom as an alternative. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:41, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
      • @Slaunger: Were can I upload them? They are useless on their own to upload here. And if you can align the pictures, I have also a nearly identical set of exposures, but with raw with 6w, 1,6s and 1/4s. --C messier (talk) 21:47, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
        • @C messier: In PTGui alignment is easy, and raw as source is better too, asCA can be removed efficiently in Lightroom prior to exporting to PTGui in 16 bit tiff for HDR fusion. Where to upload? Hmmm, well I used Dropbox, when I had Diliff help me with a restitch. If you do not want to share them in a public folder, I can email you, such that you can share a private folder. Any other file sharing service of your choice is another option, if it is not too big a hazzle for me to access. -- Slaunger (talk) 22:06, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
        • Slaunger, check your e-mail. --C messier (talk) 08:18, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
          • @C messier: : Thanks, I have send you a few candidates by mail. Not a vast improvement, but in some respects perhaps an improvement, in others perhaps not? Have a look, and see if you fand any of them relevant for upload. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:36, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
          • @Slaunger: , thank you for your time, but the jpeg-based looks overprocessed (with a black halo around the acropolis), the other looks better, although a bit too yellow. --C messier (talk) 07:26, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
            • @C messier: New versions mailed to you, less processed and less yellow (I am not too convinced of the results to be honest, except for the foreground vegetation). -- Slaunger (talk) 22:21, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
            • @Slaunger: thank you for your time, I experience(d) a problem with my PC and I wasn't able to upload them. --C messier (talk) 08:25, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose Sorry, the dark grey light-polluted sky isn't good. Prefer your one with blue sky but neither are sharp enough for FP. -- Colin (talk) 19:34, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 11:26, 4 April 2015 (UTC)