Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Norderney, Weststrand -- 2016 -- 5285 -- 2.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:Norderney, Weststrand -- 2016 -- 5285 -- 2.jpg, not featured[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jan 2018 at 15:43:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Germany
Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay talk 15:43, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Support -- XRay talk 15:43, 29 December 2017 (UTC)- Support It seems to that there's a CA at least on the inner pole. But the image is excellent! --Basotxerri (talk) 17:05, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
- Support The framing might be closer to the rule of thirds. Otherwise, a very evocative picture! -- Manudouz (talk) 18:28, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
- Support sehr schön. Das quadratische Format gefällt mir. --Ralf Roleček 21:42, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
- Support PumpkinSky talk 22:08, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 22:14, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Oppose The sky looks overexposed (burnt). Due to the long exposure, the waves are unsharp and the sea is burry. Also red CAs on the pillars. Sorry -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:22, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Comment Horizon tilted?--Peulle (talk) 01:26, 30 December 2017 (UTC)- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:56, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
- Comment @Basile Morin and Peulle: I've made minor improvements. The horizon is adjusted (the value is about -0.5 and -0.6 with Adobe LR. It's near to -0.6, so I adjusted with this value.), the waves should be blurry (you're right, Basile Morin, long exposure), it looks like minor CAs at the inner pole, but it's really minor. --XRay talk 08:09, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
- Hi XRay, thanks for your notification. As I see your image with my eyes, there are three main problems : 1) the sky is burnt, 2) the sea is blurry and 3) nothing is sharp. So let's start with the first problem. The sky is burnt, that means if you reduce the exposure of your photo from your RAW file, and even if you reduce a lot, you'll certainly still have a big white area in the middle of these clouds, like a hole, which is there because the contrasts are too high, unfortunately. This is not a beautiful sky. A beautiful sky has nice shades and the intensity of the lights are soft and subtle. I'm sorry this sky here looks violent, despite of its soft tones, it's like broken because too contrasted. It's white white white white, and then a little bit of gray (+ pink). I don't find this aesthetical. Really too hard white. The second problem is the sea. As much I like your sea in this other version File:Norderney,_Weststrand_--_2016_--_5265_--_2.jpg shot at 1/30s, as much I can't see theses waves here without thinking that the subject is blurry, and a problem. In my opinion, a long exposure is nice when the subject is static, or when a special effect is expected, like for example in this waterfalls File:Seljalandsfoss,_Suðurland,_Islandia,_2014-08-16,_DD_201-203_HDR.JPG = okay, in that case, moving water can be a featured thing. But in this image, it gives the feeling that the camera moved and missed the target, sorry ! To finish, the third problem. There's no spot in this photo where the eyes can stop and breath. Because nothing is sharp. Only the 4 wooden pillars are slightly in focus, but they are so dark, so violently black, without texture, without depth, that they can't host us. Where can my eyes be hosted in this picture for more than 1 second ? Which part of that lanscape can I contemplate safely by catching the presented elements ? Nowhere, I'm afraid. Just a feeling, a mood ? There should be something real, I think, something physical, to make it interesting. Photography requires observation. If the potential observation is absent, like in this vague image, then we miss the whole. However, because my appreciation is negative, I have to say something positive. I've spent a long time observing your Featured Pictures, XRay, and find them rather excellent in general. Even this one File:Santorin_(GR),_Exomytis,_Vlychada_Beach_--_2017_--_2999_(bw).jpg quite similar is very good for me, and for good reasons. So it's a special failure here, a bit strange but that I try to explain with my subjectivity. Nevertheless, I respect your work for all the other creations, and wish you more success in your next shots -- Basile Morin (talk) 14:19, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you for your really long answer. It helps to understand your review. I can follow some of your arguments, but there are different opinions. We have to learn every day and I'll do this experiment, reading books and talking with other photographers. So your answer will help. For example the exposure time is a feature. It's long enough to show smooth water and to preserve the structure. I can agree with your contra, the different opinion. Thank you. --XRay talk 14:39, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
,_Exomytis,_Vlychada_Beach_--_2017_--_2999_(bw).jpg){kind=link}
- Support The blurry sea's a feature, not a bug --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:37, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose I am not in love with the sky which is boring. The processing is perhaps overdone with halos round the posts. I've made a crop suggestion. -- Colin (talk) 17:08, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for your crop suggestion. IMO the resolution would be too small. I think I'll respect the ideas with my next visit at the sea. --XRay talk 17:51, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose Nice that the pillars lead the eyes to the sun but not a fan of the square format, and blow out area in the sky (which don't look like "recoverable"). - Benh (talk) 19:07, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose The sky is too devoid of color for this to be a featurable sunset for me. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:52, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose per Colin (I do like the contrast between the steely, almost mono sea and bollards with the red-orange sun, though). Daniel Case (talk) 03:38, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
