Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Feb 2018 at 20:58:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Eksjö - Kirche.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Eksjö - Kirche.jpg
Oppose Even looking at the histogram, there is practically no white in the image and this is not a grey church. Also the distortion of the tower is too great. Sorry. --cart-Talk10:00, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Histogram
W.carter: Then I recommend you strictly to learn reading histograms correctly. The curve of over- or underexposed images go to the borders. Well balanced histograms are placed away from the borders. And so it is here. This image is definitly NOT underexposed.Nevertheless I have brightend the curve a bit. --Wladyslaw (talk) 19:13, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know how to read histograms and IMO this is a little too far from the right, but thank you for taking your time to educate me further. --cart-Talk19:22, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Don't spread fake news around. W.Carter has it right. White churches under bright daylight definitely don't show that kind of centered histogram, but shall have a peak on the right because... well there's lot of well lit white. When you go skiing, you overexpose. Use your metering correctly, and don't follow rules blindly. - Benh (talk) 19:23, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The histograms of underexposed images appears shifted to the left. This histogram has not this behaviour. This is not fake, but fact. Did you accuse me to fake the histogram? Everybody can open the image and test this by himself and open the histogram. Very white buildings in very lucent sunny weather conditions I shift carefuly to a darker curve because eroded white parts is also not very considerable. This shifting I may do too strong therefore I have reduced it right now as I mentioned. --Wladyslaw (talk) 19:33, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not accusing you of faking the histogram, but of making false claims: Well balanced histograms are placed away from the borders.... where the hell did you see that? At most it can be a rule of thumb applicable in most (but not all) situations, but why would we have to avoid borders? If they are here, it's for a reason. Just know when to use them. - Benh (talk) 19:45, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please Wladyslaw, don't take the comments and sugestions personally remember that it's not a beauty ego contest, it's a nice place to improve your photographic quality, the road to continuous improvement is criticism. Please, if you are not able to receive recommendations and criticism, maybe you could take a brake. Btw, try test see you histogram with this tool --The Photographer19:54, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just because I have not the same opinion like some others this doesn't mean that I'm not able to receive criticism. Here we have a place to discuss. Many hints and opinions are usefull, but for sure not all. So: be sure that I take nothing personally. And please: I have many usefull picture processing programms. I have no need to install further. But nevertheless: thank you. --Wladyslaw (talk) 20:04, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - To me, this is an FP, based on my reaction to the light and composition and the quality of this large file, but Benh, is the lack of color space a big problem? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:00, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Quite a big. There's no scale associated to the "value" of the colours in this file and you basically see random ones. @Colin: has tried to explain very thoroughly (and probably even has written an introduction to it, but I'm currently too lazy to look for it) but there's also this. A bit annoying that our FP don't even have the proper metadata for a proper viewing (but many don't care about a proper exposed picture either so...) - Benh (talk) 05:51, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As I already had said several times. I've adjusted everythink possible to safe the sRGB colour space in all my programms. Even I made screeenshots of the settings. Nothing wrong was visible. I dont't have a problem because of this lacking information. Most of the users seem to see the image quite correctly. Because of the reminded overexposure I'll look after this this evening. I can lighten the image moderatly. --Wladyslaw (talk) 07:00, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wladyslaw has had it explained to him before how to embed the colour profile in his images. He's even managed it once or twice. He simply refuses to do so routinely, and repeatedly, for many many years, because he can't be bothered as it "looks ok on my monitor", which is set to sRGB. Anyone viewing on a wide-gamut display may not see the colours properly. It is all a bit random and depends if your browser guesses that it is "probably sRGB". Many still do not. It is fairly easy to tell if your image lacks the correct profile: stick it in Jeffrey's EXIF Viewer. -- Colin (talk) 08:39, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What should Jeffrey's EXIF Viewer be usefull for? My EXIF Data I can read also without this tool. Beside of that: this tool does not generate an output. And once again: My images all have sRGB. This I can see on the RAW files. Once I convert the RAWs info JPG the coulur space info disappears and I have not found a way to add this back again and no one could answer why this is so. --Wladyslaw (talk) 18:59, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A raw file does not have a colourspace at all. It is not sRGB nor AdobeRGB. The little embedded JPG in the raw file may be sRGB or AdobeRGB but this does not matter if you process the raw file. We have already posted in the past to your talk page how to embed the colourspace. It is certainly possible with EXIFTOOL. I recall it is possible in GIMP but not very obvious how to do it. Both EXIFTOOL and Jeffrey's EXIF Viewer will tell you if there is an embedded colourspace. I remember from experimenting in the past that GIMP's dialogs are confusing / wrong when reporting colourspace. You are one of the few people here who gets this wrong, and yet other people have the same cameras and similar software. Talk to them and find out what you are doing wrong. -- Colin (talk) 20:42, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good example of a building photographed from too close, so even when the verticals are corrected, the proportions are wrong. The cross should be smaller, as it is far away from the viewer, but instead is magnified. The solution is to take the image from further back, though this isn't always practice, without a drone! (Btw, although the EXIF says this was taken with a 70mm lens, it is actually a stitched photo so has a much wider angle of view). -- Colin (talk) 08:41, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Info FINALLY I found the reason why the embedded sRGB colour space was not displayed. Hopefully this problem is now solved definitely. --Wladyslaw (talk) 21:04, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Info all by Wladyslaw -- Wladyslaw (talk) 20:58, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Support -- Wladyslaw (talk) 20:58, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Comment Need verticals fix --The Photographer 21:01, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Oppose Even looking at the histogram, there is practically no white in the image and this is not a grey church. Also the distortion of the tower is too great. Sorry. --cart-Talk 10:00, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Question - What do you all think? Is the problem solved? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:01, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
