Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Aerial image of the Coburg Fortress.jpg

File:Aerial image of the Coburg Fortress.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Aug 2021 at 19:25:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Aerial image of the Coburg Fortress.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Aerial image of the Coburg Fortress.jpg

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles_and_fortifications#Germany
•  Info created, uploaded, and nominated by Carsten Steger -- Carsten Steger (talk) 19:25, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
•  Support -- Carsten Steger (talk) 19:25, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
•  Oppose Seems a little overprocessed ... trees, for one, don't look natural. Daniel Case (talk) 01:41, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Daniel. Too bad, because it's a nice composition. Maybe it's fixable? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:43, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
•  Comment @Daniel Case, @Ikan Kekek: Thank you very much for your reviews and for appreciating the composition of the image! Since this is my first nomination, it would be very helpful for me if you could be more specific about the reasons why the image looks overprocessed to you (colors, sharpness, ...?). I would very much like to try to rework the image according to your comments. --Carsten Steger (talk) 06:09, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

• To me, the main thing is that some of the trees look oversharpened, such that they have what look more like spiky areas of green than leaves. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:37, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you very much! This is really helpful for me. How would you rate the unsharpened version of the image (the version dated 16:25, 5 August 2021)? --Carsten Steger (talk) 08:55, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

• The fortress looks better (sharper) to me in the edited version, but the trees look more natural to me in the first version. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:26, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you very much for your constructive feedback! I appreciate it very much. I have uploaded a new version of the image in which I used a different sharpening mode. I hope this version looks more natural. I would be grateful if you could review the image again. --Carsten Steger (talk) 16:25, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

•  Comment The darker the trees are, the more unsharp they seem. I still don't think this is one of the best images on the site. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:16, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

•  Oppose per Daniel. Trees look as if this was a phone shot (I am aware it isn’t), rather watercoloured than photographed. Then, it’s a bit dull and lacking contrast IMHO. Resolution is not great, which can’t be made up by sharpening. Why ISO 800 and f/14? Wouldn’t ISO 200 and f/8 have given a sharper image? --Kreuzschnabel 16:20, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

•  Comment The airplane I am piloting while taking this kind of aerial images moves at 50 m/s. Furthermore, the aircraft is probably rolling, yawing, and pitching a little bit while the shot is being taken. In addition, there typically is thermal movement of the air, potentially causing the aircraft to shake, especially on a sunny day around noon, like in the picture. Finally, aircraft windows are typically tinted with a brownish color. Therefore, I take these photos with the pilot's window open. The 180 km/h virtual wind that is caused by the movement of the aircraft creates turbulence in the cockpit, and thus potentially causes the camera to shake. All of this creates potential motion blur. Therefore, the exposure time must be very short to have a decent chance to get a sharp image. In addition, one should fly at least 2000 ft (600 m) above ground for noise abatement reasons in Germany. This means that you are at least 1 km away (typically, much farther) from the object you are trying to photograph since you are not looking straight down but at an angle. Therefore, you have to use fairly long focal lengths (unless the object you are trying to photograph is very large), which means too little depth of field if you are using large apertures (small f-numbers). Hence the large f-number. To achieve large f-numbers and short exposure times, I use larger ISO values. I have experimented for a while with smaller ISO values, but this resulted in a much larger percentage of shots that were motion blurred and the ones that weren't didn't look sharper. This setting is the best compromise I have found so far. I hope this explains the technical challenges of taking aerial images a little bit. --Carsten Steger (talk) 19:49, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

•  Comment Das deutschlandspezifische Überlandflughöhenminimum von 2000 ft wurde meines Wissens 2015 durch SERA abgeschafft, d.h. abseits von Ortschaften und Menschenansammlungen darfst du rechtlich jederzeit auf 500 ft AGL runter. Und ohne das jetzt durchzurechnen, glaube ich nicht, dass auf die hier gegebene Entfernung f/8 eine zu geringe Schärfentiefe erzeugt hätte, aber deinem Ziel einer möglichst kurzen Belichtungszeit wäre sie durchaus entgegengekommen und hätte weniger Beugungsunschärfe erzeugt. Generell bewerten wir hier ausschließlich Bildergebnisse, ohne widrige Umstände gegenzurechnen :) --Kreuzschnabel 22:25, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

• Vielen Dank für Deine Bemerkung in Bezug auf Druchrechnen des Tiefenschärfebereichs! Die finde ich ganz hervorragend. Das hätte ich gleich machen sollen statt mich auf meine Intuition zu verlassen. Ich habe das jetzt nachgeholt. Du hast vollkommen recht: f/8 reicht von der Tiefenschärfe für alle Szenarien in der Luftbildfotografie, die für mich relevant sind. --Carsten Steger (talk) 06:22, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

•  I withdraw my nomination Thank you all for reviewing my nomination and for your constructive comments! I appreciate that very much. I have learned a lot from your comments that I can use to create better aerial images in the future. —-Carsten Steger (talk) 06:00, 14 August 2021 (UTC)