Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Biblioteca Central de la Universidad de Bucarest, Bucarest, Rumanía, 2016-05-29, DD 97-99 HDR.jpg

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

File:Biblioteca Central de la Universidad de Bucarest, Bucarest, Rumanía, 2016-05-29, DD 97-99 HDR.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jan 2017 at 19:43:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Frontal view of the Central University Library of Bucharest and Carol I statue, central Bucharest, Romania.
Slaunger HDR merge of bracketed exposures has been the technical choice Poco2 20:54, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Poco a poco: OK, it was not evident for me from the EXIF, the categories, any other information on the file page nor the picture. Which exposure times did you use? I recommend using the {{Photo Information}} for HDRs, see this for example such that you can indicate the exposure times. It is useful information for photographers interested to learn. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:02, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Slaunger, I always provide this information in the title, will add it in the file description page --Poco2 21:05, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I had not noticed 'HDR' was part of the quite long file name, sorry. I do not find the exposure times/EV step/number of brackets info in the file name though. I usually do not pay much attention to the file name as its primary role is to be unique identifer and secondly not be directly misleading. I pay more attention to the file page. But thanks for your intend to add the metadata to the file page. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:13, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ikan, he problem comes from Lightroom, it takes the exposure time from the first frame after the HDR merge. As I documented in the file description page the exposure times were 0.3, 2,5 and 30 seconds. Btw, in the last version I've removed the (airplane) lines Poco2 20:19, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • If so, your last version isn't showing up. I still see plane lines after reducing my cache to nothing. I think my overall opinion is that I like the building very much but find the blown lamps too distracting. I'm really not sure why or what you could have done about that, but it is so far making it impossible for me to feel "wow" from this photo. I won't oppose but don't feel impelled to support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:45, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I will upload a new version this evening I see indeed room for improvement but right now the Lr catalogue is crashing when I try to rework it, as said, will look into it later Poco2 07:28, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, I could upload a new version, this evening will upload another one. Poco2 07:56, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral per The Photographer. Update to  weak support after last edit, and now that I know the exposure was 20 seconds and not a third. Daniel Case (talk) 17:39, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Slaunger, Daniel Case, and The Photographer: Would you mind having one more look at it? I've completely reworked it Poco2 20:19, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral Looks like the shadows have been lifted quite que bit (and Canons suck when it comes to this so it shows). Wonder what your HDR pipeline is exactly. Strange you get this much noise. Also I don't like the prominent stars/glares. But it's still a very nice night architectural. We have worst FP.- Benh (talk) 20:37, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral The edit helped, and thanks for the added metadata on the file page. As benh I am surprised you are not getting a better quality, assuming your HDR processing has been done right. Have you had a look at each exposure and verified the quality is allright prior to HDR combination? And I find the weird lightbrown jagged lines in the sky mystic. It does not seem plausible that they are trails from aircraft over a 20 s period to me. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:47, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Okay, there's noise, but in the FPC rulebook, supporting is allowed if the "wow overrides technical defects". The lighting and symmetry, along with the fabulous architecture, and impressive sunstars on the lamps, wow me enough. I think this deserves the star - just my opinion -- Thennicke (talk) 10:11, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  weak support I don't really get the nitpicking here. Is the subject good? Yes. Are the lights good? Mostly yes. Are there minor technical issues anyone can nitpick on? Sure. But I could go back to any given FP, even those getting the "support trains" and point out problems that could be improved. Same goes for the "distracting red lights", gotta be kidding there... Why weak support then? I'm not a fan of the sunburst effect, personally think the aperture was way lower than should have been. Apart from that I'd like to see a more gentle roll off of the whites, much like in v2-3-4. The reds were a bit over the top burning here and there but not much and should be easily corrected with little effort. Most importantly no artificial darkening of the sky because simply burning it will leave a halo around the building. Pull the sky down to dark and if part of the roof goes with it, then be it. The statue is easy to mask out to keep the details there. IMHO from the peanut gallery. KennyOMG (talk) 15:47, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Per Thennicke and KennyOMG. I think the criticism is much too harsh. Might be that there's still room for an improvement but all in all it's an excellent picture and surely one of our finest. --Code (talk) 16:23, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support I think that this picture is FP, improvable? of course, however, that is another subject at photographer discretion. --The Photographer 16:27, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 19:59, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 06:20, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:22, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support − Meiræ 02:53, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 3 neutral → featured. /Jee 12:25, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Biblioteca_Central_de_la_Universidad_de_Bucarest,_Bucarest,_Rumanía,_2016-05-29,_DD_97-99_HDR.jpg&oldid=229988894"