Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bóveda de la sala 36, Galería Nacional, Londres, Inglaterra, 2014-08-11, DD 165-167 HDR.JPG
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:Bóveda de la sala 36, Galería Nacional, Londres, Inglaterra, 2014-08-11, DD 165-167 HDR.JPG, featured[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Oct 2014 at 21:57:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info Dome of the centrepiece room of the Barry Rooms, National Gallery, London (England). The National Gallery was founded in 1824 and has a collection of over 2,300 paintings from the mid-13th century to 1900. The present building in London's Trafalgar Square is the third to house the National Gallery, and was designed by William Wilkins from 1832–38. The Barry Rooms were constructed later on, between 1872 and 1876 and were nouned after their designer, the English architect Edward Middleton Barry (1830–1880). The dome is located over the room 36 and is of polychrome Neo-Renaissance style. All by me, Poco2 21:57, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Support -- Poco2 21:57, 23 September 2014 (UTC)- Support -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 22:11, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- Support -- -donald- (talk) 06:46, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:55, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
- Support --Böhringer (talk) 09:26, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Comment Is the glass ceiling really that dull, or simply the effect of lowering the highlights in an HDR? I can see that it is frosted glass (presumably to make the light less directional, thus acting like a huge softbox on the paintings) but just concerned this appearance is unnatural. -- Colin (talk) 12:00, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
- Colin: I've looked into the 3 original frames and cannot say with certainty whether increasing the highlights would make it look more realistic. My problem now is that I have nothing to compare with (incredible that there is no single picture in the net of this masterpiece! I wonder whether I am so crazy that continously look up for nice motifs :)) and I left London a weeks ago. I also think that the result depends on the weather, it was cloudy. Long story short, I can tune up the highlights but not sure whether this will make it look the way it should be. Poco2 18:31, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
- Postcard, commons. The brightness here just looks like this is frosted glass through to another room (above) rather than daylight. I'm sure 2pm in August would be bright even on an overcast day. I know with HDR there is a temptation to reveal the detail lost in the glare of highlights or in the dark shadows, but sometimes that's how it's meant to be. -- Colin (talk) 20:23, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
- I am getting confused. I have seen those pictures earlier, but I don't think that really help to compare here due to the fact that they have poor quality and there is a strong overexposure. Are you suggesting that in order to make it look more realistic I should increase the highlights and so lose detail? That would mean decreasing quality. Looking at the building from outside (comparing it here, see room 36) I am pretty sure that there is no room above it, and that is the same impression I get when looking at the original frames. Poco2 20:59, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
- That's what I'm suggesting, but I appreciate that's a hard ask. You are looking up at the main source of light for the room. Looking directly at a light source usually takes the dynamic range off the scale. If those windows really were as dull as this, then that room would be dark and you'd couldn't appreciate the paintings (though, from the other Commons picture, I see there are some small spotlights). Let's assume these windows really are glaringly bright to the eye as one would expect from a sky light. What you've achieved then, through taking a greatly underexposed frame and combining it with tone mapping, is to achieve some magic where the detail on the glass frosting is visible. It's equivalent to seeing the words "Philips" on the frosting of a 100w bulb that is switched on, or sunspots -- something not directly visible to the eye. I appreciate that it is thrilling to extract all this detail from a scene and hurts to consider suppressing some of it. I've had a similar discussion offwiki with David Illif on the shadow detail in one of his cathedrals -- just because you can hugely lift the shadows to reveal the darkest areas doesn't mean you should. It's addictive and magical. Question: if the glass really is this dull, then I'd expect your mid exposure frame to not be blown other than for right hand side. -- Colin (talk) 07:36, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
- Is this a +/-2EV HDR? If yes, then the highlights are probably actually really dull compared to most uncolored church windows presented here, because otherwise they would just be blown beyond everything. And imo the impression is realistic enough, doesn't look like massive highlight recovery to me. --DXR (talk) 08:31, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
- Right, it's a +/-2EV HDR. Poco2 19:56, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
- Is this a +/-2EV HDR? If yes, then the highlights are probably actually really dull compared to most uncolored church windows presented here, because otherwise they would just be blown beyond everything. And imo the impression is realistic enough, doesn't look like massive highlight recovery to me. --DXR (talk) 08:31, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
- That's what I'm suggesting, but I appreciate that's a hard ask. You are looking up at the main source of light for the room. Looking directly at a light source usually takes the dynamic range off the scale. If those windows really were as dull as this, then that room would be dark and you'd couldn't appreciate the paintings (though, from the other Commons picture, I see there are some small spotlights). Let's assume these windows really are glaringly bright to the eye as one would expect from a sky light. What you've achieved then, through taking a greatly underexposed frame and combining it with tone mapping, is to achieve some magic where the detail on the glass frosting is visible. It's equivalent to seeing the words "Philips" on the frosting of a 100w bulb that is switched on, or sunspots -- something not directly visible to the eye. I appreciate that it is thrilling to extract all this detail from a scene and hurts to consider suppressing some of it. I've had a similar discussion offwiki with David Illif on the shadow detail in one of his cathedrals -- just because you can hugely lift the shadows to reveal the darkest areas doesn't mean you should. It's addictive and magical. Question: if the glass really is this dull, then I'd expect your mid exposure frame to not be blown other than for right hand side. -- Colin (talk) 07:36, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
- I am getting confused. I have seen those pictures earlier, but I don't think that really help to compare here due to the fact that they have poor quality and there is a strong overexposure. Are you suggesting that in order to make it look more realistic I should increase the highlights and so lose detail? That would mean decreasing quality. Looking at the building from outside (comparing it here, see room 36) I am pretty sure that there is no room above it, and that is the same impression I get when looking at the original frames. Poco2 20:59, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
- Postcard, commons. The brightness here just looks like this is frosted glass through to another room (above) rather than daylight. I'm sure 2pm in August would be bright even on an overcast day. I know with HDR there is a temptation to reveal the detail lost in the glare of highlights or in the dark shadows, but sometimes that's how it's meant to be. -- Colin (talk) 20:23, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
- Colin: I've looked into the 3 original frames and cannot say with certainty whether increasing the highlights would make it look more realistic. My problem now is that I have nothing to compare with (incredible that there is no single picture in the net of this masterpiece! I wonder whether I am so crazy that continously look up for nice motifs :)) and I left London a weeks ago. I also think that the result depends on the weather, it was cloudy. Long story short, I can tune up the highlights but not sure whether this will make it look the way it should be. Poco2 18:31, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
- Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 14:19, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
- Support --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 15:00, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
- Support --XRay talk 15:24, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
- Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 17:45, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
- Support --Famberhorst (talk) 18:25, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
- Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:58, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
- Support --Cayambe (talk) 16:43, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
- Support-- Arcalino (talk) 08:40, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
- Support — Julian H.✈ (talk/files) 18:16, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
- Support Basik07 (talk) 22:23, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
- Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 08:13, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors
