Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Namib-Naukluft Sand Dunes (2011).jpg

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

File:Namib-Naukluft Sand Dunes (2011).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2013 at 20:14:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

English: Sand dunes in the Namib-Naukluft National Park, Namibia. Older dunes are reddish and larger, newer dunes are yellow-brown.
I've struck my oppose. Yathin sk says the adjustments to the original image were to make it look like he remembered rather than to make a saturated abstract. Sometimes reality does look unreal. Colin (talk) 11:18, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You can upload the RAW file too --The Photographer (talk) 17:36, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support This photograph is the most beautiful thing I've seen here in a while --The Photographer (talk) 14:25, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose -- This version, which is apparently overdone. Let's wait for the uncropped one and see. Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:30, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Comment I didn't nominate this and I prefer not voting on this but I'm still curious to learn and to answer critiques. Original version: File:Namib-Naukluft Sand Dunes (2011) original.jpg. What's overdone? I'd rather shoot conservatively with the camera and tweak colors on a more powerful computer than the camera. I used to shoot with Nikon D70/D300/D2x before moving to Canon 7D/1Ds III/1D IV so I've seen it first hand how amazing Nikon can make photographs shot in auto-saturation mode look, compared to Canons! I'm only bringing up the Nikon/Canon issue because I've also seen other Canon users needing to work harder with post-processing/colors than Nikon users. Also, my humble suggestion is that if you choose to use harsh words (like your earlier comment about whether this being photography at all), please back it up with a more detailed feedback (like @Colin did so wonderfully). -- Yathin sk 21:03, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Those harsh comments never took place, maybe it is your imagination! . There are two things I don't like: the lack of detail; and the apparently unnatural colors. The first issue seems to be the result of the convection of warmed air from the heated ground, much agravated by the use of a telephoto; the second ... I don't know but I suspected that the colors had been somehow oversatured in the digital lab. That is why I withdrew my first comment and decided to wait and see. Anyway, I much prefer the uncropped version! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:40, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Perhaps I'm high on internet addiction Clin but thank you for sharing your thoughts. It is much appreciated. This is what, an hour or so after sunrise on a cool/cloudy day and was already so hot -- but that's what deserts look like whether it looks good on photo or not. I prefer not to use the telephoto for landscape but the spot of light on a sand dune with a live tree in front was too good to resist an opportunistic landscape composition (something I do rarely!). I only tried to show the colors that I saw and I can say that it was more similar to the cropped version than the uncropped. Cheers! -- Yathin sk (talk) 22:02, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hey Yathin, try not to take it too much to heart. It is such an unusual view that many of us can't compare with known reality. Thank-you for uploading the original as this confirms your FPC isn't as unreal as I thought, though I still prefer the original colours. On Commons, there is a bias towards faithfulness whereas many photographers these days are digital artists. I'm not against tweaking the image in Photoshop/Lightroom but there comes a point where it deviates enough from the original that the "retouched" template is useful to be honest about how different the final image has become. -- Colin (talk) 21:56, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • No worries. It is an interesting thread and I was a little shaken at first because I thought I had only done adjustments to look like what I had seen. I was actually surprised with a nomination and then having to come for its defense . Thanks for your constructive feedback though. -- Yathin sk (talk) 22:12, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support — Between this image and the alternative below, it came down to a choice between composition versus naturalness of colors. Composition won, but I had a lot of flip-flopping. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 02:05, 9 February 2013 (UTC) Switching my support to the alternative version. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 22:34, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- Peter23 (talk) 10:56, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Looks the way I remember it too (only I got stuck in the sand just at that time of day after a 50 km rush to get to the prettiest dunes ;-().  B.p. 13:32, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support--Miha (talk) 14:45, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 22:23, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose for this version. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 10:15, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative[edit]

Confirmed results:
Result: 13 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 10:13, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Namib-Naukluft_Sand_Dunes_(2011).jpg&oldid=148472222"