Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Imperial Academy of Arts Panorama.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:Imperial Academy of Arts Panorama.jpg, featured[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 May 2016 at 00:15:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture#Russia
- Info created and uploaded by Florstein - nominated by A.Savin --A.Savin 00:15, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- Support --A.Savin 00:15, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- Support INeverCry 00:53, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- Support Another standard Florstein, but the colors in this picture are especially nice. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:25, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- Weak Oppose. Certainly a nice building, but I don't love what's on either side of it. I think that for me to consider this kind of shot a FP, it would need more sky, with nice clouds (especially, dramatic ones), or perhaps some really great light, such as the streaming yellow sunlight that you can get shortly after sunrise. Sorry, I know this may seem a bit nitpicky. It's a very good photo, but it's not quite FP to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:43, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose It's a nice capture with good detail though I agree with Ikan that it would benefit from more sky. But it is way over-processed. Compare File:Imperial Academy of Arts.jpg. The white in the other photo is peach yellow/orange in this. While such a change could occur with "golden hour" lighting, this photo was taken at 13:16, 17 October 2015, which is far away from golden hour as one can get. And golden light wouldn't explain why all the grey elements (street signs, cars) are blue-grey. It's too contrasty too. I'd support a neutral version where Photoshop Lightroom sliders were more conservatively set. -- Colin (talk) 07:43, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- Support. Enough to be a FP. It's autumn, anyway. I think such lighting isn't a cause to deprive a photo be a FP. --Brateevsky {talk} 15:54, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
- Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:45, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
- Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 20:46, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
- Support For me is great --LivioAndronico (talk) 14:23, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Colors not right, per Colin. Composition is ... well, nothing wrong with featuring an image that uses a vantage point widely used by tourists, as I've argued in the past, but this isn't an exceptional enough iteration of that. Daniel Case (talk) 22:54, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Daniel Case: sorry, but colors are accurate. The lighting is quite different than on the photo presented by Colin: very bright summer day vs cloudy autumn day (and it's overexposed a bit: white parts of the building on the summer picture are not white in reality). And I can't be responsible for other photographers who make photos with absolutely dull colors. Composition is... well, it is a problem - I still can't fly. So I can only agree with the nominator and support. --Alex Florstein (talk) 09:20, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- Alex Florstein, I recognised the tell-tale effects of too much Lightroom "vibrance" when I first looked at the JPG. But if you want proof then see the EXIF data. Vibrance +79, Hue Adjustment Orange +4, Saturation Adjustment Orange +27, Saturation Adjustment Blue -14, Luminance Adjustment Orange -15, Luminance Adjustment Blue -13, Contrast +32, Clarity +45. Now some global tone adjustment is fine -- a little bluer sky for example, but these are frankly ridiculous settings for a documentary photograph. Our FPC requirements state "Digital manipulations must not deceive the viewer...Undescribed or mis-described manipulations which cause the main subject to be misrepresented are never acceptable."' Submit this as an artistically colour-enhanced piece of art if you like, but you can't claim these colours are "accurate". I don't think I've ever taken Vibrance past +25, ever mind +79. The strong Contrast +32 adjustment also affects global saturation. And Clarity is on the high side at +45. -- Colin (talk) 09:56, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Colin: nice to see you care about the content of Wikicommons and thanks for the investigation. Like in CSI TV series! But I still see no criminal here. I just corrected shooting inaccuracies caused by hazy weather and natural tendency of amateur Nikon cameras to make a little bit dim image. Thats it. --Alex Florstein (talk) 10:17, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- UPD: But I'll certainly consider your advices and criticism in further work. Thank you. --Alex Florstein (talk) 10:25, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- Alex, this has nothing to do with "amateur Nikon cameras". I see you have chosen "Camera Neutral" for the colour profile. This is Adobe's simulation of Nikon's "Neutral" profile. It is slightly lower contrast/saturation than Nikon's "Standard" profile, which is simulated as "Camera Standard" in Lightroom. Another option is "Adobe standard" which is Adobe's own calibrated profile. But I have never read any review that suggests a D5300 or Lightroom are so awful at rendering colours than a vibrance adjustment of +79 is necessary to correct it! I think you should consider if your monitor is displaying colours correctly if you think these colours are accurate and fair. -- Colin (talk) 11:23, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- Colin, may be it's partially my fault, I'm not supposed to blame D5300. But I usually had no problems with "Camera Neutral", this time, apparently, it has developed the adverse conditions. And I assure you that colors are real at all my photos. My monitor is calibrated. Anyway, your comments very important to me, I'm here to learn and I always try to listen to good advice. --Alex Florstein (talk) 12:13, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- Alex, this has nothing to do with "amateur Nikon cameras". I see you have chosen "Camera Neutral" for the colour profile. This is Adobe's simulation of Nikon's "Neutral" profile. It is slightly lower contrast/saturation than Nikon's "Standard" profile, which is simulated as "Camera Standard" in Lightroom. Another option is "Adobe standard" which is Adobe's own calibrated profile. But I have never read any review that suggests a D5300 or Lightroom are so awful at rendering colours than a vibrance adjustment of +79 is necessary to correct it! I think you should consider if your monitor is displaying colours correctly if you think these colours are accurate and fair. -- Colin (talk) 11:23, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- Alex Florstein, I recognised the tell-tale effects of too much Lightroom "vibrance" when I first looked at the JPG. But if you want proof then see the EXIF data. Vibrance +79, Hue Adjustment Orange +4, Saturation Adjustment Orange +27, Saturation Adjustment Blue -14, Luminance Adjustment Orange -15, Luminance Adjustment Blue -13, Contrast +32, Clarity +45. Now some global tone adjustment is fine -- a little bluer sky for example, but these are frankly ridiculous settings for a documentary photograph. Our FPC requirements state "Digital manipulations must not deceive the viewer...Undescribed or mis-described manipulations which cause the main subject to be misrepresented are never acceptable."' Submit this as an artistically colour-enhanced piece of art if you like, but you can't claim these colours are "accurate". I don't think I've ever taken Vibrance past +25, ever mind +79. The strong Contrast +32 adjustment also affects global saturation. And Clarity is on the high side at +45. -- Colin (talk) 09:56, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Daniel Case: sorry, but colors are accurate. The lighting is quite different than on the photo presented by Colin: very bright summer day vs cloudy autumn day (and it's overexposed a bit: white parts of the building on the summer picture are not white in reality). And I can't be responsible for other photographers who make photos with absolutely dull colors. Composition is... well, it is a problem - I still can't fly. So I can only agree with the nominator and support. --Alex Florstein (talk) 09:20, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 09:20, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- Weak Oppose A nice capture but colors don't look right to me, specially the blue, the result is unrealistic (both as it is and comparing it to other pictures). Poco2 11:54, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 8 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 11:17, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture#Russia