Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Lysekil Panorama.jpg

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

File:Lysekil Panorama.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jul 2017 at 17:32:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Panorama of Lysekil, Sweden
  •  Support Zoom viewer still wasn't working, but this time, I was able to zoom the photo normally without having my browser turn black. Relaxing panorama with a very pleasant rhythm. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:46, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ermell, it's not just this file that can't be viewed in the zoom viewer, it's the viewer tool itself that is broken at the moment and it is affecting all files AFAICS. Check any other file and you'll get the same message. Don't dismiss a photo because of some fault totally unrelated to the file. --cart-Talk 20:46, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was able to view and enlarge it the normal way, without using the zoom viewer. The first time I tried, it turned every page on my browser black and I had to reboot Firefox, but another time, it worked. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:45, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Info Daniel Case: I have fixed now the errors. Especially one house face was broken before my fixing. So thank you for your hint to make this image better. I have also done some other minor improvements. And I have also added the EXIF now. But one's again, and my very last explanation to this really silly topic, Colin: I never erase any information of the EXIF. The programs do this. And in the linked discussion I have explained, that I have expended hours and hours to look how to add the colour space information to the EXIF but I failed. And non of your hints worked. Maybe sad, but true. The color space in original is sRGB, this I have proved by a screenshot of the original, unprocessed picture. I have to do better works than to continue this (in my eyes) worthless investigation how to add "sRGB" info into the EXIF. If this one missing information is really the ONLY reason to oppose my picture than do this. But please do not hope for any comprehension or sympathy any more. --Wladyslaw (talk) 20:59, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wladyslaw there are plenty photographers here who would be happy to help with your workflow problems if you ask nicely, but for over six years I see you stubbornly refuse offers of help and struggle with this trivially simple aspect of image-generation. Pretty much everyone else here manages to create stitched panoramas and to process their raw files and has no problem with losing the colourspace information. So it is an option you have ticked or unticked or a step you forget to perform that everyone else manages OK. This should have been a "Ah, so that's how you do it, thanks for the info" moment about six years ago, and yet here we still are, and your images do not display correctly on many monitors. I'm sorry that I've been unable to help but I don't have the same camera/software as you though there are plenty others here who do. An embedded ICC colourspace is the only way to ensure your image colours are meaningfully specified. I will check the EXIF later. -- Colin (talk) 07:39, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose The polarization of the sky is too intense for me. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:43, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maybe you should calibrate your panel correctly. --Wladyslaw (talk) 06:19, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree with KoH that the polarisation effect is strong, and the combination with a wide-angle view is not always advised because it only then affects one part of the sky. Whether it is "too intense" or "excellent" is a matter of taste. -- Colin (talk) 09:00, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wladyslaw, I recall from earlier discussions you have an expensive monitor and profiling tools. I don't know quite what "calibration" you have done, but this page describes the typical process. One doesn't typically change the monitor settings much other than brightness levels and perhaps the overall R/G/B gains in order to set the white point to 65K. The rest of the "calibration" is actually "profiling" the monitor to determine its own colour profile. This is then saved to disc and the OS updated to use it for that monitor. The colour managed software then converts from the colour profile of an image (sRGB, AdobeRGB, ProPhotoRGB, etc) to the profile of your particular monitor, and this ensures you see accurate colours. But, and here's the big but, colour managed programs such as browsers, GIMP, Photoshop, Lightroom, can only actually do this if the source image contains an ICC colour profile (Photoshop, Lightroom and Safari can infer the ICC colour profile based on a few DCF EXIF tags but other software including all Windows browsers, need the embedded ICC colour profile). So your JPG, that has no EXIF tags (other than name/copyright) and has no embedded profile, is not being colour managed on your computer. Any adjustments you have made to make it look "right" for you are thus peculiar to whatever characteristics are present in the monitor sitting on your desk, but not "right" for anyone else on the planet. If your monitor is a little too yellow, say, then you end up making the image a bit too blue to compensate. So it is rather cheeky for you to suggest KoH needs to calibrate his monitor when in fact you have offered us a JPG that does not conform to any recognised colour profile at all. KoH can calibrate his monitor all he likes, and he still won't see the same sky you do, and nor will anyone else. The process relies on you ensuring the JPG is set to a known standard profile, and the JPG contains enough meta information that software can determine that profile. The irony is that your high quality monitor and profiler ensures you see everyone else's photos accurately, but your faulty workflow ensures nobody else sees your photos accurately. -- Colin (talk) 09:00, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 12 support, 2 oppose, 3 neutral → featured. /Daphne Lantier 06:12, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Panoramas
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Lysekil_Panorama.jpg&oldid=251079210"