Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Boxwood and beech relict forest canopy, Epiphytes, Mezmay, Russia.jpg

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

File:Boxwood and beech relict forest canopy, Epiphytes, Mezmay, Russia.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jun 2023 at 11:51:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Tree canopy in relic forest. Kurdzhips Canyon, Western Caucasus.
Harsh light sounds odd here. A landscape or an object can be harsh lit under midday sun, but dense canopy which itself is diffusing, scattering, reflecting and dispersing the light, when photographed from the ground is bright at best. I would refer to tree canopies like this as 'bright and magical' but certainly not harsh lighted. Apart from the sunlight here is already subdued by scattered clouds. This place is special because not too many forest habitats are that old in the world. --Argenberg (talk) 13:27, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
An ordinary tree does not become spectacular just because it's old, unfortunately. At least this picture does not reflect this peculiarity. Concerning the light, I maintain it's harsh, with strong contrasts. I've added notes to show were the blurry foreground is the most distracting. Too narrow depth of field. There is no visible sun rays like in File:Bruderwald-Herbst-026375.jpg for example. Not the best time of the day for shooting in my opinion -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:48, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It’s a matter of taste. I find this scene spectacular with all the twists, curves, moss and old lichen. Old forests (over 300 years old) almost always do look spectacular to most people and you have to appreciate nature to find beauty in such scenes. You seem to have low tolerance for contrast. Harsh is usually associated with something undesirable like blown-out highlights or something, which is not the case here as the dynamical range is effectively preserved. The blurriness that you highlighted is natural in photography. Those are out-of-focus areas and I believe it does not have to be everything in focus in dense forest. You can play with out-of-focus areas and add them to the mix if it feels right. I don’t quite remember, but it is possible I intentionally placed those low-hanging branches in frame to grant it more depth and a spontaneous feel and to balance the composition. --Argenberg (talk) 12:54, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, so sorry to say that the more I look at your picture, the more the issues mentioned above embarrass me. So maybe it's not worth trying to convince me. I honestly think this image is not spectacular. Even though it is a great forest to walk through. I don't know, good for the planet, but photographically, no wow in my subjective view. Black shadows, wrong focus. Regards -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:36, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Of course you can have your point of view and your own subjective perception. I wasn’t trying to convince you actually. It was an attempt to describe what deems limiting to me. What I forgot to mention is that out-of-focus areas in frame can also add presence (in addition to perceived depth and spontaneity) to the scene to acquire more immersive and less stagy experience/appearance. It is commonly practiced in cinematography and photography. They can also be an artistic element in the composition on its own. By the way, the shadows on the left look pleasantly dark on my display, which is professionally calibrated, not black. Yes, someone may probably find the shadows dark, but if I were to lift them the image would then loose some natural dynamics and would become flat, I guess. Thanks for comments, anyway. --Argenberg (talk) 17:07, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, lifting the shadows wouldn't be a good idea. They are originally dark, not because my screen is badly calibrated, but because the photo was taken in the middle of the day, at 13:14. Harsh light = harsh contrasts = hard shadows -- Basile Morin (talk) 17:32, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 6 support, 8 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:57, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Boxwood_and_beech_relict_forest_canopy,_Epiphytes,_Mezmay,_Russia.jpg&oldid=773081107"