Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Brown Bear Nationalpark Bayerischer Wald 02.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:Brown Bear Nationalpark Bayerischer Wald 02.jpg, not featured[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Mar 2011 at 00:34:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info created and uploaded by Aconcagua - IdLoveOne (talk) 00:34, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Support -- IdLoveOne (talk) 00:34, 6 March 2011 (UTC)- Support Top left corner severely overexposed, but I like the different perspective. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 03:26, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Oppose Severly overexposed in the top left corner and motion blur on the bear (although I agree that the perspective is good.)--Snaevar (talk) 00:23, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
- I nominated this because of the motion blur. It's a major aspect in the "1000 words" of this photo and shows a well-known couple of behaviors of bears: Their ability to swim, their ability to withstand the cold and, well, the pretty much only way they know how to dry themselves off. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 13:37, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
- Info -- Alternate with levels changed any good? Or this one? -- IdLoveOne (talk) 07:29, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
- This guy sees overexposure of ice and snow as natural. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 11:52, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
- I think you completely misunderstood what he wrote about. Sting (talk) 12:12, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think so. Snow and ice are white or rather when light hits/enters snow or ice crystals they reflect back white light. Therefore a photograph of ice is to be expected to be white and radiant and seem overexposed. That page is more about his method of compensating through deliberate underexposure, but I'm just making a point. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 13:35, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
- I´m talking about overexposure in the top left, just as THFSW voted on. The first alternative picture is better than the second, but I must agree with Sting, that you are not quite getting the idea.--Snaevar (talk) 13:52, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
- ...What in particular do you think I don't understand? -- IdLoveOne (talk) 13:57, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
- Oh! Wait, do you mean on the bear? If so you could've just said that. You three had me wondering about the ice, and that's his (her?) right BTW. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 14:06, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
- Overexposed in the top left and motion blur on the bear, yes. (changed the wording of my vote to reflect this)--Snaevar (talk) 14:54, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
- I´m talking about overexposure in the top left, just as THFSW voted on. The first alternative picture is better than the second, but I must agree with Sting, that you are not quite getting the idea.--Snaevar (talk) 13:52, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think so. Snow and ice are white or rather when light hits/enters snow or ice crystals they reflect back white light. Therefore a photograph of ice is to be expected to be white and radiant and seem overexposed. That page is more about his method of compensating through deliberate underexposure, but I'm just making a point. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 13:35, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
- @IdLoveOne : what the guy wrote is that if you take a picture of a very clear subject (here ice), the exposure meter of the camera will try to get a middle gray scene, underexposing the ice, so usually the photographers compensate a bit to get back the correct balance of the scene and a bright subject, but Mr Zuckerman prefers not applying that correction and he never wrote that ice/snow should be overexposed, on the contrary as a burnt photo is lost. Note that for a dark subject it's the contrary, the meter trying to get it gray... and it's what happened here as the bear is in the shadow while the upper left corner is in the sun, that's why this area is blown as no compensation was made. Sting (talk) 22:13, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
- No, no, I didn't say the snow should be overexposed. I said that because of how light works with snow when photographed without a compensating method it will appear to be overexposed. He underexposes his snow imagery and then digitally enhances them later. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 00:03, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- « with snow... without a compensating method it will appear to be overexposed » at the contrary !! « ...sees overexposure of ice and snow as natural » well, your first comment leads to misunderstanding, but that's ok. Sting (talk) 00:13, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- No, no, I didn't say the snow should be overexposed. I said that because of how light works with snow when photographed without a compensating method it will appear to be overexposed. He underexposes his snow imagery and then digitally enhances them later. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 00:03, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support --Aconcagua (talk) 15:57, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support I like the overexposure in the top left, because the overall contrast it creates adds to the expression of the picture. Nice circular motion blur, clearly shaking its head MerlinCharon (talk) 12:16, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support -- Lovely! MartinD (talk) 14:04, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose I see a blurry bear and partialy overexposed background, which all together makes an impression of a quckly made snapshot. Masur (talk) 08:50, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose per Snaevar--shizhao (talk) 12:47, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 11:28, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
