Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Dülmen, Merfeld, Dülmener Wildpferde in der Wildbahn -- 2016 -- 4740.jpg

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

File:Dülmen, Merfeld, Dülmener Wildpferde in der Wildbahn -- 2016 -- 4740.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jun 2017 at 04:47:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Dülmen ponies in the Wildbahn in the Merfelder Bruch (COE-004) in the morning fog at sunrise, Merfeld, Dülmen, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany
  •  Comment I expected this kind of oppose vote when I first saw the nomination and I find it really ridiculous. What do you expect the sky to look like when photgraphing towards the bright sun? That's obviously a necessary part of the - clearly excellent - composition here. FPC is getting more and more frustrating especially for those users contributing excellent and artistic photgraphy. --Code (talk) 07:35, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • KennyOMG, you are entitled to not like the composition/effect, but it clearly is not just a picture of horses but also of the sunlight through the trees and the sunlit morning fog. So that can't really "overwhelm the picture" any more than someone's head can overwhelm a portrait. That's what Code is saying is "ridiculous". Perhaps this is just a case of a badly worded review? -- Colin (talk) 08:08, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why would it be ridiculous or even invalid? It's not more ridiculous/invalid than some opposes I got recently. But I think name calling leads to nowhere, maybe I'm wrong. -- KennyOMG (talk) 10:32, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It appears we're drifting away from one of the primary purposes of promoting images to FP, which is actually not how great the technical quality is for a mundane scene, or how well the image fits into a cookie cutter pattern we have grown accustomed to seeing. A bad picture of a very difficult subject is a better picture than a good picture of an ordinary subject. A good picture of a difficult subject is an extraordinary photograph. I've seen the baby get thrown out with the bath water for all the wrong reasons, including images that Adobe accepted under their very stringent technical requirements for their stock library. I can understand that we're not all going to like the same images which is a matter of taste, but scenes that surpass cookie cutter aesthetics and are different from the norm, such as being shot in locations where few ever go...scenes that few ever see...those are the things that occassionally get overlooked:

• Value – our main goal is to feature most valuable pictures from all others. Pictures should be in some way special, so please be aware that:
• almost all sunsets are aesthetically pleasing, and most such pictures are not in essence different from others,
• night-shots are pretty but normally more details can be shown on pictures taken at daytime,
• beautiful does not always mean valuable.

Just my two cents worth. Atsme 📞 13:06, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Because of the colors and the grandeur of the scene, this photo surpasses File:Crepuscular rays in ggp 2.jpg which is used as a marker for User PH-4, IMO. --cart-Talk 08:05, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support I like it, but wonder if the transition about halfway down the frame, from glare to clarity, is natural or the result of a filter (e.g dehaze). If so, I wonder if it could be made to transition more gradually and/or less strongly. If it is a linear gradient filter, then perhaps an round/oval one would be more appropriate wrt the sun rays. -- Colin (talk) 08:08, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Yes, a linear gradient filter to brighten the horses. But you're right, it's too strong. I just improved the use of the filter. But there is no filter around the sun. --XRay talk 10:19, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure what you mean by "linear gradient filter to brighten the horses". I see that since my comment, you have uploaded a new version with lighter horses. That's fine, but what I was talking about was the line across the trees that makes those below have more contrast (deeper dark). It looks like the contrast is much stronger in the lower half and less glare. I didn't mean the filter was around the sun, but you know how a filter can be inverted, so it is either like a soft hole rather than soft disc, this is what I mean by applying the filter in an oval shape, rather than a straight light. If you could say what adjustments your filter made, then perhaps I could make a more clued-up suggestion. -- Colin (talk) 11:28, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The filter brighten especially the lower part. Additional there is a little bit more contrast. But the darker part of the trees itself is natural. I've checked this with removing the filter. The values are exposure +0.51, contrast +6, deep lights +35, clarity +12, saturation +10. --XRay talk 12:06, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment @KennyOMG, PetarM, Colin, and Bruce1ee: (and all others): The filter makes trouble. So I removed the filter. Now you can see there is a line which looks like a filter, but there isn't a filter. Sometimes there are things that you would not think possible. --XRay talk 12:18, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@XRay: The filter wasn't the reason for my oppose above, and it wasn't for the technical quality of the picture either. It's simply that, as stated above, it just doesn't work for me. For me the horses are the subject of the picture, which, in my opinion, the glare spoils; if they weren't there I'd view the picture more favorably. —Bruce1eetalk 15:33, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 14 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Jee 05:35, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Dülmen,_Merfeld,_Dülmener_Wildpferde_in_der_Wildbahn_--_2016_--_4740.jpg&oldid=248883363"