Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Mallorca - Cap Figuera1.jpg

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

File:Mallorca - Cap Figuera1.jpg, not featured

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jul 2014 at 22:28:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Figuera Bay, Mallorca
In genereal I could add some sky. --Wladyslaw (talk) 20:51, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fotoriety: why a average lighting? because everythink is visible clearly in beautifull colours? what would be a good lighting? --Wladyslaw (talk) 04:23, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, sorry for asking you. I just see that you're just a voting puppet (with 0 uploads). So there is no reasonable anwser to expect. --Wladyslaw (talk) 04:27, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's pretty darn offensive. Unlike many editors, i always make an effort to state why i reject (or support) any FP candidates. Just because you have a photo that shows azure waters doesn't mean that you have taken an FP. To me, apart from the waters, the photo has zero wow that is expected of an FP.Fotoriety (talk) 08:12, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just your personal opinion without a comprehensible and without an answer to my specific question. I'll bring your attitude to discussion. --Wladyslaw (talk) 08:24, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[Removed unhelpful comments about the creator as requested on both the talk page and COM:ANI. --Slaunger (talk) 21:05, 16 July 2014 (UTC)] If you require further enlightenment about the lighting (if it isn't already obvious enough), then let me inform you that i consider it to be very flat. Furthermore, you have a nominal foreground that adds very little to the framing of the photo and adds minimal depth; you have a headland that has minimal breathing space above it; the scene should evoke feelings of relaxation and leisure, but is instead emotionless and static. [Removed as well --Slaunger (talk) 21:07, 16 July 2014 (UTC)] Fotoriety (talk) 13:42, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
composition is poor because of? A similar view like File:Pollença - Ma-2210 - Cala Figuera 09 ies.jpg I have already made and will upload this evening. --Wladyslaw (talk) 12:11, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The < shape seems unbalanced and the blunt headland looks oddly contrasted with the sharp triangle at the bottom. The left crop seems rather arbitrary. There is a lot of sharp detail but at screen-size the view of the cliffs are rather flat: the lighting is not bringing out the shape of the hill. The image is so detailed I wonder if another crop might help -- I'll play around with it tonight if I get a chance. -- Colin (talk) 12:50, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral There is a great shot in the bottom left area and a good one on the right, but together, they don't work well in my opinion. It's hard to explain why, but a lack of sky might be a factor, as well as less depth than many other possible compositions. Unrelated to the composition: The rock has halos. — Julian H.✈ (talk/files) 12:44, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am convinced that more sky would be positive for the impression (looking on a small thumb shows why) at all. I'll add some sky this evening. --Wladyslaw (talk) 12:48, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And I'm very impressed that nobody of those who critise the light can tell me exactly whats wrong with it. --Wladyslaw (talk) 20:40, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that it's coming from behind you. — Julian H.✈ (talk/files) 21:06, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To give a little more detail regarding the light and my previous comment:
What I mean: It is obviously not coming exactly from behind you, but the general direction of the sun appears to be within maybe 30 degrees of the direction of shooting. A higher sun angle also usually doesn't help. It actually hurts in that it increases light-shadow-contrast. More on that further down.
Why I believe that it creates bad lighting: If the light is not noticeably coming from either side, shapes that have some kind of non-flat shape (round stones, the general rounded shapes of most landscape subjects) are not pronounced at all. With the sun almost behind you, it is very hard to tell the three-dimensional shape of objects because there is no difference in brightness depending on the surface angle. For good surface rendering, a sunset on either side of the photographer with soft and very directional light would be ideal, as it would have a contrast between light and shadow side of an object that is large enough to define shapes but low enough to be easily captured with the dynamic range of a camera. It also creates a difference in light temperature, which makes shapes even more beautiful to look at. At the other end of the spectrum would be an aerial photo in the middle of the day, straight down. No matter how the surface changes direction, everything will be equally bright and equal in light temperature and if a small shadow appears somewhere, it will be almost black and have sharp edges so that it can't define a rounded shape. Your photo is of course not equivalent to the second scenario, but it is somewhat close. The left part of any hill-like shape is almost equally bright as the right part of the same shape and shadows have very sharp edges and are pretty dark (they still have detail, but in the general composition, they don't help defining shapes because they are more or less binary: Shadow or no shadow, nothing in-between).
Now I'll note that there are of course scenarios where this kind of light doesn't hurt at all or is actually helpful. For more complex materials like shiny things or water, this doesn't matter, and in cases where there are no interesting round shapes, it might also not be necessary to have soft side lighting. But for a majority of subjects, and three-dimensional landscapes are among those, I think flat midday light is not great. It's obviously a question of taste to some extent, nothing is right or wrong in photography, but I feel like many people agree with the general idea that softer and more angled light produces more pleasing results.
I hope this helps in explaining my previous comment. Grüße, — Julian H.✈ (talk/files) 08:33, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Info new version with more sky is uploaded. --Wladyslaw (talk) 20:40, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral it's obviously taken from a skilled photographer, and yes the place is interesting and the intensely blue water is calling for a dive, but I was about to point the same issue as other opposers : harsh noon lighting, giving both flat subject and washed out colors, which is noticeable especially on the upper left part. IMO, the same exact photo at sunrise/set (should come from the right on the picture) would be a no brainer FP, but maybe author can't return there this easily... - Benh (talk) 09:13, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Noticed no color profile is embedded in the picture. I think it's an easy fix which can only do good to the picture. - Benh (talk) 19:01, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /Jee 05:08, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Mallorca_-_Cap_Figuera1.jpg&oldid=129656699"