Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bridge on the River Kwai - floating market 4.JPG
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:Bridge on the River Kwai - floating market 4.JPG, not featured[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Sep 2017 at 02:44:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places#Thailand
- Floating market at the Bridge on the River Kwai, Thailand. All by me. PumpkinSky talk 02:44, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Support -- PumpkinSky talk 02:44, 6 September 2017 (UTC)- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:51, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Comment - This is very good, but I want to know what's to the left. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:00, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
- Comment Ikan Kekek The river at this spot runs pretty much north-south. This photo was taken from the eastern side (where the tourist plaza is). The eastern bank of the river is on the left; just back from the bank is the tourist plaza. PumpkinSky talk 09:37, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks a lot. I guess what I really mean, though, is that while viewing this photo, I want to see what's further to the left on the platform. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:47, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
- Ikan Kekek Ah, you're wanting more this sort of scene: File:Bridge on the River Kwai - floating market 5.JPG, but note the boat and rail of the River Kwai Bridge are in the way. Yes, this is the famous bridge from the book and movie, both of which were highly inaccurate, BTW. Maybe I can combine the two photos.PumpkinSky talk 23:16, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
- Compositionally, I'm liking that photo more than this one, and would consider voting for it, in spite of the blurry foliage in the foreground. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:37, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
- Ikan Kekek I could crop out the foliage and rail but it'd leave only a tiny bit of the riverbank in the lower left. PumpkinSky talk 23:53, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
- I don't know if that would improve the picture, overall. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:58, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
- I totally see your point; let me play around with the two images in PS and see what I can come up with. PumpkinSky talk 00:03, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
- Ikan Kekek Check the new version of the second photo ("5"). I cropped the bottom and right and IMHO this is better. PS is no help here in merging as the photos are too different. Right now you may get the cached older version and may have to click directly on the photo to get the new version. PumpkinSky talk 00:50, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
- I actually prefer the previous version, because this way, it looks like the boat was cropped haphazardly, whereas in the other one, you see the bridge. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:01, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
- Ikan Kekek OK, check the latest version of photo "5". If you like that one maybe I could do a set nomination or put it up as an alt.PumpkinSky talk 19:22, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
- I haven't decided yet. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:36, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
- Ikan Kekek OK, check the latest version of photo "5". If you like that one maybe I could do a set nomination or put it up as an alt.PumpkinSky talk 19:22, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
- I actually prefer the previous version, because this way, it looks like the boat was cropped haphazardly, whereas in the other one, you see the bridge. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:01, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
- Ikan Kekek Check the new version of the second photo ("5"). I cropped the bottom and right and IMHO this is better. PS is no help here in merging as the photos are too different. Right now you may get the cached older version and may have to click directly on the photo to get the new version. PumpkinSky talk 00:50, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
- I totally see your point; let me play around with the two images in PS and see what I can come up with. PumpkinSky talk 00:03, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
- I don't know if that would improve the picture, overall. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:58, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
- Ikan Kekek I could crop out the foliage and rail but it'd leave only a tiny bit of the riverbank in the lower left. PumpkinSky talk 23:53, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
- Compositionally, I'm liking that photo more than this one, and would consider voting for it, in spite of the blurry foliage in the foreground. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:37, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
- Ikan Kekek Ah, you're wanting more this sort of scene: File:Bridge on the River Kwai - floating market 5.JPG, but note the boat and rail of the River Kwai Bridge are in the way. Yes, this is the famous bridge from the book and movie, both of which were highly inaccurate, BTW. Maybe I can combine the two photos.PumpkinSky talk 23:16, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks a lot. I guess what I really mean, though, is that while viewing this photo, I want to see what's further to the left on the platform. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:47, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
- Comment My general statement to this discussion is the following: Once out there capturing photos, it is highly recommended to comprise more of a pleasant subject's environment. With photo editing it is never a problem to crop, but there is no chance to add more to a photo what is not there.
Generally spoken: for landscape photography a wide angle lens is in the majority of the cases more helpful than a normal or telephoto lens. For full frame sensor cameras (FX) the 20 mm wide angle lens is one of the best choices. It even offers more opportunities than a 24 mm lens. And not to forget about the larger DoF with wide angle lenses. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:12, 7 September 2017 (UTC) - Measured support The colors and the unusual angle make it work for me. Daniel Case (talk) 16:51, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Oppose Not seeing an engaging composition here, just a tourist shot. Also the processing is overdone, with too much NR and strange pixel-level artefacts (oversharpening?). Btw, the file size is rather high. Have you been saving at maximum quality on Lightroom? Try one stop down (which is 90% -- there aren't actually 100 quality levels in Lightroom, only about 12 which corresponds to Photoshop) -- the quality is indistinguishable but big savings in filesize. -- Colin (talk) 11:25, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
- Comment I didn't even use NR on this. The slider is as zero. PumpkinSky talk 11:36, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
- PumpkinSky (and also Colin), if I may: I see that this photo was taken in April, and if I remember correctly, that was before you learned about RAW. If this photo is just the original jpeg from the camera, the program in the camera has made an automatic NR when it converted the RAW file to the jpeg you extracted. Jpegs from the camera has built-in NR from the start, even if you don't touch the slider in LR afterwards. --cart-Talk 14:16, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
- Cart Correct, this was taken before I learned about RAW. Thank you for the info. PumpkinSky talk 14:21, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
- That's probably the reason. But even in a raw converter like Lightroom, there's always some NR going on. For example, the colour NR in Lightroom defaults to 25 (and is best kept there unless one has huge ISO values and little reason to go smaller), and the demosaicing process aims to minimise noise. You need to use one of the open source raw converters to see what a raw file looks like out-of-camera, and it is quite awful. -- Colin (talk) 16:13, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
- I've seen unprocessed RAW and yes it's ugly. PumpkinSky talk 16:39, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
- Weak oppose The pleasant colors and exotic buildings are definitely eye-catching here, however the quality is quite blurry when you zoom... Something wrong has been done when capturing/editing this. -- Pofka (talk) 16:57, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Laitche (talk) 09:14, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
