Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Piz Boè Lec Dlace Pas dl Lech Dlace.JPG
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:Piz Boè Lec Dlace Pas dl Lech Dlace.JPG, not featured[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Apr 2014 at 15:24:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info created by Moroder - uploaded by Moroder - nominated by Moroder -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 15:24, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Support -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 15:24, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Oppose Sky underexposed, mountains slightly underexposed. --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 15:03, 6 April 2014 (UTC)- Support (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 15:54, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
- AK, I am not sure whether this is a fair comment. I guess this is not observed very often in Singapore, but in the Alps there are some very clear days when the sky appears extraordinarily dark and saturated. I am sure that Wolfgang is experienced enough to set the brightness according to the conditions he experienced. --DXR (talk) 15:40, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
- @DXR: Haha no. No such thing in Singapore. Our skies are never clear btw. Even when there appears to be a clear blue sky, there is definitely a layer of clouds high up in the sky, probably cirrostratus, as the airport METAR will report "BKN300" (broken clouds at a height of 30000ft/9144m). This probably explains why sometimes skies in photos taken in other parts of the world on a really clear day seems too blue to me. But of courae I still support those photos. And based on your comment above, I've striked my oppose and support. (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 15:54, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
- Actually, I think AK is correct. While I can accept the polarised sky the whole image is still a bit underexposed. That aside, there is a big spot in the sky (upper left - see note) perhaps a flare? Saffron Blaze (talk) 17:13, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
- Info I fixed the sky with a new upper crop. I am afraid that there is confusion in the terms underexposed and dark. There are no lossed lights in the picture which has a high dynamic range (contrast) due to the light conditions up on 3000 m. elevation with lots of sun and snow. The light conditions of the image are the same as those of the mountain I have skied these days. --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 17:51, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
- Actually, I think AK is correct. While I can accept the polarised sky the whole image is still a bit underexposed. That aside, there is a big spot in the sky (upper left - see note) perhaps a flare? Saffron Blaze (talk) 17:13, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
- @DXR: Haha no. No such thing in Singapore. Our skies are never clear btw. Even when there appears to be a clear blue sky, there is definitely a layer of clouds high up in the sky, probably cirrostratus, as the airport METAR will report "BKN300" (broken clouds at a height of 30000ft/9144m). This probably explains why sometimes skies in photos taken in other parts of the world on a really clear day seems too blue to me. But of courae I still support those photos. And based on your comment above, I've striked my oppose and support. (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 15:54, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Comment I agree with AK that it's underexposed. The sky is not normally this dark, and there is quite a bit of room to go before the snow starts to become overexposed. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:45, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
- Info Uploaded a new version. I insist that the term underexposed or overexposed are misleading in this context as I stated above. Thanks for the review --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 11:35, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
- Support Good now. Slightly unsharp but not too concerning given the huge resolution. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:12, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
- Support Yann (talk) 06:27, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Neutral Quality is acceptable but not outstanding, the scene is nice, too, but I miss something especial here to make this image excellent Poco2 12:26, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
- I am sorry for you, probably more at easy with BMW buildings, never mind, thanks for the review --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 22:51, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
