Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Пелистер 03.jpg

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

File:Пелистер 03.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2017 at 13:44:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Winter scene near Pelister (2,601 m)
  •  Oppose B&W can make some photos more interesting but this is unfortunately not the case here. The loss of color doesn't add anything to this picture. B&W is also a totally different technique, most of the times you need some contrast and light adjustment after removing the color. --cart-Talk 21:47, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Cart, I too thought it was b&w but actually there is a little colour on their jackets. Btw, the photo is in AdobeRGB colourspace, which isn't suitable for web images. -- Colin (talk) 22:11, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Colin, I was under the impression that AdobeRGB is fine if it is tagged and using modern browser (testing this here: http://www.gballard.net/psd/go_live_page_profile/embeddedJPEGprofiles.html), is AdobeRGB really still bad on the web nowadays? – Lucas 22:17, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See User:Colin/BrowserTest. Modern desktop browsers are all colour managed wrt the JPG if there is an embedded colour profile. Articles such as the one you link unhelpfully use the word "tagged" but in fact EXIF tags indicating the colour space are totally ignored by all browsers: only the embedded profile matters. However, in an 8-bit JPG, using AdobeRGB will require a conversion to sRGB to display on 99% of desktop monitors, which runs a risk of causing posterisation in colour graduations such as the sky or on skin tones. It is intended as a profile for sending to a print shop because it better captures some of the colours that CMYK can print. Most people using AdobeRGB have read somewhere it has "more colours" (it doesn't, it has the same number of colours as sRGB, just covering a wider gamut) but since >99% of people have sRGB monitors, most people picking this profile cannot actually view these more vivid colours themselves. It was never intended as a shared display profile and is not recommended for web use. Mobile browsers are not colour managed (though someone told be the latest iPhone might be). Since mobile traffic is now at least as significant as desktop traffic in terms of numbers, and only growing, this remains a problem. Users on the mobile browsers that are not colour managed will see the wrong colours. Cart my colourspace comment wasn't really related to the desaturated/b&w confusion. Just something I spotted when looking at the EXIF to see if the file had been desaturated somewhat. -- Colin (talk) 22:32, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah! And here I thought it had some nifty function so you could see if a photo was in RGB or greyscale. --cart-Talk 22:40, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Cart, if the photo had genuinely been saved as a greyscale JPG then yes the EXIF would likely indicate that. But not many professional image programs even offer that option, and I think many b&w photos are actually colour JPGs. -- Colin (talk) 08:46, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Unless the image is still available as a raw file, and can be re-exported as an sRGB JPG, I wouldn't recommend changing the colourspace. -- Colin (talk) 08:46, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course the footprints are key. I didn't make myself clear, sorry. I think they would be better going on a diagonal. 19:39, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose, at least for the moment. I actually like the composition, but it looks under-exposed to me. In a scene like this, where you have snow with strong sunlight you would expect at least some areas that are close to pure white, but there's plenty of space left on the right side of the histogram. EXIF data suggests that it was shot with an exposure compensation of -1/3 EV, while you'd normally compensate into the other direction for snowy landscapes. Easily fixed in post even from the JPG version, but I'd prefer it to be done by the author based on the RAW file. Maybe even pull down the shadows a bit, it's a pretty high-contrast scene after all. Personally, I'd also go for a pure b&w version, as that little bit of colour doesn't really add anything other than distraction to the image (for me). --El Grafo (talk) 19:59, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  I withdraw my nomination--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:46, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 03:10, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Пелистер_03.jpg&oldid=234675712"