Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Parc national de Jebel Orbata.jpg

File:Parc national de Jebel Orbata.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 May 2017 at 11:00:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Parc national de Jebel Orbata.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Parc national de Jebel Orbata.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
•  Info created by --IssamBarhoumi (talk) 11:00, 12 May 2017 (UTC) - uploaded by --IssamBarhoumi (talk) 11:00, 12 May 2017 (UTC) - nominated by IssamBarhoumi -- IssamBarhoumi (talk) 11:00, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose strange colors, dull light? --Alchemist-hp (talk) 13:30, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
  •  Info dear Alchemist-hp they are real colors and the sun was behind me and there was clouds as fog covering it as the clouds you are seeing in the sky those plant has this colours in south Tunisia especially in summer --IssamBarhoumi (talk) 13:58, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose Image doesn't look realistic. EXIF suggests levels heavily altered, so I don't agree this is "real". -- Colin (talk) 17:14, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
  •  Info dear Alchemist-hp and dear Colin this is the raw file you can verify that it is not heavy processed [[1]] --IssamBarhoumi (talk) 20:01, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
    • I opened the raw file in ACR and it looks completely different to this. Lots of contrast and dark green vegetation. Perhaps your monitor is not set up correctly, or you haven't go the correct colour profiles. -- Colin (talk) 20:26, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
  •  Info dear Colin but the darkness is meant to be during the shot because if I did not do that the sky would be overexposed ... lot of my photos was rejected due to clouds overexposed so this time i divided the job so I can correct it after ... the only thing I did is i decreased highlights an whiteness and improved the shadow ... this is not overprocessing and my monitor is OK --IssamBarhoumi (talk) 21:50, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
    • According to the EXIF, the following adjustments have been made in Lightroom: Parametric Darks +31; Parametric Lights -49; Parametric Highlights +54; Sharpen Edge Masking +100; Luminance Noise Reduction Detail +50; Color Noise Reduction Detail +50; Contrast +17; Highlights -100; Shadows +81; Whites -100; Blacks +89; Clarity +36. I have rarely seen so many and such extreme levels adjustments made to an image. The EXIF information isn't perfect evidence since it is often lost/removed during the editing process, particularly if several programs are used, but here is seems to be intact. You can't just whack those sliders left and right all over the place. From looking at the raw file, it was fine out-of-camera and only needed minimal adjustments. Certainly there was no issue with blown white clouds. I recommend you buy "The Digital Negative: Raw Image Processing in Lightroom, Camera Raw, and Photoshop" by Jeff Schewe. -- Colin (talk) 09:50, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Colin's analyses. Daniel Case (talk) 23:13, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
  • •  Info dear all thank you for your valuable pieces of advices there would be better photos I promise that --IssamBarhoumi (talk) 11:19, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
•  I withdraw my nomination --IssamBarhoumi (talk) 11:19, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 11:08, 14 May 2017 (UTC)