Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Motocross guanajuato.jpg

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

File:Motocross guanajuato.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jul 2011 at 21:02:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  •  Info created, uploaded, nominated by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 21:02, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Something common, but a little different here... -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 21:02, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose So much photographic information is lost to whatever happened there. The shadows are so dark, and the colors are so overtweaked, it doesn't even look real. No one's helmet should "glow fluorescent" like that, not in the daytime. I can't even make out the details of the tires, though I know I should since the image was snapped fast enough. There are also lens spots and/or dirt. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 04:50, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment
  1. Dark objects in a shadows are... dark.
  2. Colors are not tweaked, that´s the way they are, helps people see them... much like construction vests, the idea is to be seen.
  3. the tires are slightly blurred... motion blur, that is not a photographic fault.
  4. luminosity values are what they are and reproduced according to their value in the dynamic scale. Can´t expect white to be shown as gray or blue, for example.

Thanks for your review. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 14:47, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Comment You are correct, but I chose to leave it like that for two reasons, one practical and one for composition. On the practical side, the image can be cropped by the end user if they don´t need the sky, but if they do, to place text, for example, it is there. On the composition side, it gives the bake space into which to fly. Personal choice. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 19:01, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Correct. This is one of the shortcomings of digital photography. If neither extreme exposure is right in this case, it is because the luminosity of the scene, that is the dynamic range of the scene is wider than the dynamic range of digital cameras. Consecuently, the exposure is in the middle values. To have overexposed to bring back the shadow detail, would have meant to push the highlights even further out into more over exposure, and to under expose the sky would push the shadows into even darker values. There is a dynamic range for existing light conditions, for film and for digital. The shorter scale is the digital one. Digital works great when that scale is short. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 19:01, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment You could have used a little bit of flash to brighten the subject. bamse (talk) 01:03, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment I'm almost sure the sensor's dynamical range was wider than this jpg image shows. Do you have the RAW? If so, I believe this can be done much better with the right postprocessing. Feel free to send it to me via mail if you don't know how to accomplish that. -- H005 10:39, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment Both of you are correct... and this is how one learns! I did not use flash because of the sync speed, it would have created a double image. And yes, the raw file can yield a bit more, but guess what? I did not shoot raw! In any case, my intention was to freeze the moment considering the contour or outline of the subject, expose for a half decent sky and I did not concern myself much with shadow detail, for I think it is irrelevant in this particular case. The graphic element here for me is contour and the photographic concern was to freeze motion. Sometimes in order to privilege certain things, one has to sacrifice others. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 14:54, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Motocross_guanajuato.jpg&oldid=56405538"