Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:003 Wild Alpine Ibex Sunset Creux du Van Mont Racine Photo by Giles Laurent.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:003 Wild Alpine Ibex Sunset Creux du Van Mont Racine Photo by Giles Laurent.jpg, featured[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jan 2024 at 22:37:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals/Mammals/Artiodactyla#Family_:_Bovidae_(Bovids)
- Info created by Giles Laurent - uploaded by Giles Laurent - nominated by Giles Laurent -- Giles Laurent (talk) 22:37, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- Giles Laurent (talk) 22:37, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support JukoFF (talk) 23:01, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support Great. --Laitche (talk) 23:16, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support How heavy these horns should be, on the head every day :-) Nice composition but the white balance seems a bit too cold in my view. the snow and the mountains are blue, the temperature should be increased a tad in my opinion -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:40, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you! The sun was set and the whole ground was in the shadows everywhere on the ground (except in the sky) and it was getting pretty dark. The white balance was normal in this image. The snow just simply takes a blueish tint when it's in the shadow. If the ground would have still been in the light, it would have appeared white (or yellow because of golden light at that hour) while the parts in shadow would still appear blue. Here are some examples where you can observe this natural phenomenon (compare the color of snow in the shadow with the color of snow in the light : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8. The only difference between this picture and these examples is that this picture has no part in the snow directly in the sun. That is probably why it might confuse you at first glance because there is no reference of how the snow is when it is the light. But the blueish tint of the snow when in shadow is completely natural and the white balance is accurate. Giles Laurent (talk) 08:25, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for your explanations. I'm not saying your camera captured wrong colors, but that the overall aspect seems rather blue. There's a major difference with the examples you give: the contrast, and the reference colors. See this illustration to explain (can you believe A and B are the same color?). If you place a green box surrounded by reds, then you won't see this green the same color as near yellows. The problem is there is no part with sunlight, so the eyes cannot move between, and the brain cannot figure out what is white here. But perhaps the issue is also the exposure. I wonder if your image is not underexposed, because it appears quite dark. If not, maybe that's just the background which is the same color and intensity as the subject. Still I think the animal in its environment is interesting enough, even if the picture cannot be improved -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:42, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
- Yes that is precisely what I tried to explain (sorry if I was not clear) : as there is no sunlight in direct contact with the snow in this picture, there is no reference of the color on snow in light. This naturaly makes everything in the shadow look a bit blueish, especially the whites of the snow. But the white balance of the image is accurate. Also for the mountain you mentionned in the first comment, it is a natural phenomenom that the further away a mountain is, the more it fades into the color directly behind it (which is blue in most scenarios, including in this picture because the sun was already that down that there was already a start of a blue line at the horizon). This is often witnessed in Switzerland as there's often mountains in the distance. Here are some examples showing that the further a mountain is, the more it fades into the sky (into blue tint in most scenarios) : 1234. It is due to the fact that the further away mountains are, the more air particules are in the way. As for the exposure, the entire place was in the shadows and it was already quite dark. I can ensure that the picture exposure corresponds to what I saw with my eyes at that moment because of the sun setting and the shadows and I promise that the picture is not underexposed. Good photographs of animals in the dark tend to be rare because of the challenge of low light shooting. Luckily I had my f2.8 lense as I was prepared for such scenario. If I would turn up the exposure of this image, the result would not correspond to reality anymore and I would like this picture to stay close to it and to what I saw on that day. Giles Laurent (talk) 11:36, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
- A camera cannot reach the range of contrasts discernible to the eye, however there are ultra-bright lenses which see better than the human eye, at reasonable speeds. From my point of view, it's good to take advantage of it, because it compensates -- Basile Morin (talk) 14:27, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, you're right for camera range of contrasts vs human eye but for this particular picture there was no direct sunlight anymore on the ground and sky was not bright in that direction and therefore the contrast between highlight and shadows was lower and the picture dynamic range was closer to human eye. Also this camera handles 15 stops of dynamic range, which is huge. Nevertheless I think I probably brightened the shadows area a bit in lightroom on this picture to bring the result closer to what could be seen with the eye but not much difference was needed. Giles Laurent (talk) 14:59, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
- A camera cannot reach the range of contrasts discernible to the eye, however there are ultra-bright lenses which see better than the human eye, at reasonable speeds. From my point of view, it's good to take advantage of it, because it compensates -- Basile Morin (talk) 14:27, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
- Yes that is precisely what I tried to explain (sorry if I was not clear) : as there is no sunlight in direct contact with the snow in this picture, there is no reference of the color on snow in light. This naturaly makes everything in the shadow look a bit blueish, especially the whites of the snow. But the white balance of the image is accurate. Also for the mountain you mentionned in the first comment, it is a natural phenomenom that the further away a mountain is, the more it fades into the color directly behind it (which is blue in most scenarios, including in this picture because the sun was already that down that there was already a start of a blue line at the horizon). This is often witnessed in Switzerland as there's often mountains in the distance. Here are some examples showing that the further a mountain is, the more it fades into the sky (into blue tint in most scenarios) : 1234. It is due to the fact that the further away mountains are, the more air particules are in the way. As for the exposure, the entire place was in the shadows and it was already quite dark. I can ensure that the picture exposure corresponds to what I saw with my eyes at that moment because of the sun setting and the shadows and I promise that the picture is not underexposed. Good photographs of animals in the dark tend to be rare because of the challenge of low light shooting. Luckily I had my f2.8 lense as I was prepared for such scenario. If I would turn up the exposure of this image, the result would not correspond to reality anymore and I would like this picture to stay close to it and to what I saw on that day. Giles Laurent (talk) 11:36, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for your explanations. I'm not saying your camera captured wrong colors, but that the overall aspect seems rather blue. There's a major difference with the examples you give: the contrast, and the reference colors. See this illustration to explain (can you believe A and B are the same color?). If you place a green box surrounded by reds, then you won't see this green the same color as near yellows. The problem is there is no part with sunlight, so the eyes cannot move between, and the brain cannot figure out what is white here. But perhaps the issue is also the exposure. I wonder if your image is not underexposed, because it appears quite dark. If not, maybe that's just the background which is the same color and intensity as the subject. Still I think the animal in its environment is interesting enough, even if the picture cannot be improved -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:42, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 06:17, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support — Draceane talkcontrib. 10:11, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support --SHB2000 (talk) 10:36, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:21, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support Cmao20 (talk) 18:02, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support Ermell (talk) 23:29, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Aristeas (talk) 07:08, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support ★ 14:08, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support A little dark and chilly, sure. But because of the time of day, it's just a kind of available-light picture that works. -- Radomianin (talk) 16:24, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:38, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support Poco a poco (talk) 10:15, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- Radomianin (talk) 07:41, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Mammals/Artiodactyla#Family : Bovidae (Bovids)