Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Night scenes of Gloucester Road, Hong Kong.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:Night scenes of Gloucester Road, Hong Kong.jpg[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Sep 2015 at 07:57:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info created, uploaded and nominated by Exploringlife) 07:57, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Support -- Exploringlife) 07:57, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Oppose. Nice light trails from the cars, but the rest of the image is not so good - lots of underexposure and overexposure and fairly low sharpness/resolution. Diliff (talk) 11:43, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
- Also, your signature is a bit.... brash and distracting. Diliff (talk) 11:44, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
- Calm down please, you're misunderstanding of my signature design, my signature uses green background colour is to carry out comfort feeling. The "Exploringlife" shows by hand-written words but not "Arial", "Times New Roman" or other traditional computer fonts, is just showing sincerity and making relax feel. Finally linking user talk page via symbol of "talking cloud", just want to look brand-new, don't want to make the same with others like "(talk)", so boring. Yes, the signature is a bit bigger, but surely not brash, also can reduce the size to minimize the special or distracting feels. Anyway, I feel weird because here is discussing the picture achieve feature level or not, don't know why interfere with my signature together, become digression. Exploringlife (talk) 13:43, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
- Calm down? I was perfectly calm - I simply expressed my opinion. I'm not misunderstanding the signature, I just dislike its visuals. It doesn't need to carry out any 'comfort feelings', its purpose is simply to identify the owner of the comments. I stand by my comments, I think it is brash and distracting. You say you don't know why I 'interfere' with your signature... it's because everyone else has to put up with it. It actually bleeds onto other people's text. It's a scourge if you ask me. I was perfectly calm before, but your response has made me less so. :-P Diliff (talk) 14:00, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
- @Exploringlife: Thanks for changing signature. Diliff simply expressed what many people think about "eye catching" signatures. Yarl ✉ 06:36, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- Calm down? I was perfectly calm - I simply expressed my opinion. I'm not misunderstanding the signature, I just dislike its visuals. It doesn't need to carry out any 'comfort feelings', its purpose is simply to identify the owner of the comments. I stand by my comments, I think it is brash and distracting. You say you don't know why I 'interfere' with your signature... it's because everyone else has to put up with it. It actually bleeds onto other people's text. It's a scourge if you ask me. I was perfectly calm before, but your response has made me less so. :-P Diliff (talk) 14:00, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
- Calm down please, you're misunderstanding of my signature design, my signature uses green background colour is to carry out comfort feeling. The "Exploringlife" shows by hand-written words but not "Arial", "Times New Roman" or other traditional computer fonts, is just showing sincerity and making relax feel. Finally linking user talk page via symbol of "talking cloud", just want to look brand-new, don't want to make the same with others like "(talk)", so boring. Yes, the signature is a bit bigger, but surely not brash, also can reduce the size to minimize the special or distracting feels. Anyway, I feel weird because here is discussing the picture achieve feature level or not, don't know why interfere with my signature together, become digression. Exploringlife (talk) 13:43, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
- Also, your signature is a bit.... brash and distracting. Diliff (talk) 11:44, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose Per David. Daniel Case (talk) 03:19, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose Per others --LivioAndronico (talk) 08:49, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose I agree with the others, even though I like photos taken by night. --Tremonist (talk) 12:07, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination No matter how many oppose votes, now I withdraw this voting and closing the discussion. If my photo become Commons FPC again, that means my camera has replaced by a high definition one. Exploringlife (talk) 13:43, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
- That's a good idea. A modern high resolution camera has a much better chance of reaching FP standards. Diliff (talk) 14:01, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
- Although the Canon EOS 5D Mark III that you're using has the highest resolution compare with other cameras until now, still has a disadvantage of taking panorama, need to take different shots and combine them together by software, a bit trouble. So I'm thinking of a camera which can take panorama in one shot, also have a close resolution to your camera. Besides, my camera Olympic SP570UZ has accompany with me for 7 years already, which built up profound sentiments with loving memories, also it's functions still keeps very well, therefore I'm reluctant to throw it into rubbish bin. I think I'll use 2 cameras, the new one specially for taking featured level/landscape/long-ranged view/complicated pictures, and the old one takes close-range view and simple composition photos. Exploringlife (talk) 06:49, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- That's a good idea. A modern high resolution camera has a much better chance of reaching FP standards. Diliff (talk) 14:01, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
- Exploringlife, although many cameras have a panorma mode (which also takes multiple photos but combines them in the camera rather than later on computer) the results are unlikely to reach Featured Picture quality. Of the different brands, Sony seem to have the best reputation for their implementation of "Sweep panorama". They always output JPG rather than RAW files, which can limit one's options for making alterations to exposure (such as to rescue blown white clouds), and on close examination they usually have small "stitching errors" where the software doesn't align the frames perfectly, and interior shots are bound to exhibit parallax errors. Some examples I have taken with this camera feature are File:Colosseum exterior rear 2012 sweep panorama.jpg, File:Colosseum interior 2012 sweep panorama.jpg, and File:Waterloo Bridge Panorama.jpg. Alternatively one can use a fisheye lens to get a wide angle-of-view such as File:Colosseum interior 2012.jpg and File:Westminster from the dome on Methodist Central Hall.jpg, though distortions are a consequence of such an extreme lens.
- Any modern DSLR or mirrorless interchangeable-lens-camera will improve the quality of your photos provided you use high-quality lenses. If you are prepared to take the time to stitch panoramas on computer (and there's a lot to learn and it is time-consuming) then you can achieve much finer results (e.g. File:Tower Bridge view at dawn crop.jpg). For interior panoramas, it is almost essential to use a tripod with panoramic head, combined with stitching software on computer. For a light-trail photo like above, it is hard but not impossible to get this right in the camera. It is easier to handle the extremes of bright lights and dark buildings using software like Lightroom and Photoshop. It also helps to ensure the photo has something of interest other than just the car light trails, such as with File:Big Ben at sunset - 2014-10-27 17-30.jpg. Hope this helps. If you want more advice on choosing a camera, ask on my talk page and I'm sure several people will offer advice. -- Colin (talk) 07:49, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
