Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Playa de la Cola del Caballo in La Unión, Murcia, Spain, 2022 January - 2.jpg

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

File:Playa de la Cola del Caballo in La Unión, Murcia, Spain, 2022 January - 2.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Feb 2022 at 09:08:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Playa de la Cola del Caballo in La Unión, Murcia, Spain in January, 2022.
  • It looks weird, but I assure you it is there for real. I checked the pictures and the color divide happens in the middle of original pictures. It is caused either by the light casting differently between the clouds or by the reflections of clouds, even if it might look fake. (Similarly to the water on the very right side of the bay.)--Ximonic (talk) 14:19, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Hulged (talk) 14:59, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Daniel Case (talk) 16:44, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Cmao20 (talk) 00:12, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Abstain {{Panorama}} or {{Retouched picture}} missing in the description page. It is clearly a photomontage, because the Canon EOS 5D Mark IV I use everyday is limited to 6720 pixels large, while here we have 9,250 pixels, suggesting a combination of multiple frames, as Llez perhaps also suggested above. When shooting large scenery, the light is seldom the same in the different directions of the camera, and these changes sometimes cause color alterations. Blue at the left, gray in the center, then blue again at the right, the sea looks weird but can be real, as Ximonic confirms, and the cliffs at the right seem to cause the same modification as the clouds. However, the overall aspect of the image looks strange, like very colorful, and no contrast. Is it a multi-exposure HDR capture? Again there are no indication on the file page. Such a colorful foreground mixed with intense light in front is not compatible with traditional photography, thus something certainly has been pushed a bit far in the post-treatment, at least the shadows. More information about what exactly produced this picture welcome -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:05, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for review. The image is panned from several 16 mm frames shot handheld on a little dangerous terrain. Each direction was shot in 3 exposures, due to noticing a lot of overblow and underexposure happening in camera preview. The raws, each having the same manually set white balance in camera, were automatically stitched together in Adobe Camera Raw in "HDR Panorama" mode and brought to edit table in the Adobe landscape color mode. The sky was separately selected to bring down the brightest parts a bit to avoid too much highlight clipping warning. Conversely, the foreground exposure was lifted somewhat to reveal the geography and the variable textures of the landscape. Metadata is left with information from only one of the original files, and is therefore not trustworthy. But as there is always the software in between, with all it's mystical clever calculations which I couldn't affect, can you ever be truly certain what it has done? I could upload the individual frames of the scene to Commons as a proof of what is happening in the seawater. But honestly, those files wouldn't bring much anything else to the table, aesthetically or as alternatives. Each picture having worse exposure and more awkward composition, they wouldn't be very useful, other than only trying to proof this image's seawater. I don't know if they're worth uploading solely for that reason, but cause more unnecessary work. --Ximonic (talk) 14:30, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the suggestion of the {{Panorama}} template though. I don't know about the purpose of retouched. I have never uploaded raw images to Commons, so essentially there has never been an image from me that is not retouched either in camera software or some PC photograph software. It seems very puristic. --Ximonic (talk) 14:35, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the explanations. I believe the natural transitions of color of the sea. Although this is really bad luck in that case with different frames, I've ever seen such things in my own RAWs. No worry. But I judge the image from what is given in the file page. I've added two categories related to the technical aspect, but I think a simple link to High-dynamic-range imaging in the description section or somewhere, would help the observers to understand what they have under the eyes (like here). Thanks for having added {{Panorama}} (in that case {{Retouched picture}} would be redundant). The final stitched composition is very special in the management of the light, some call this "overprocessed", in part because it is shot in bracketing mode. If you provide the trick, this is educative, in my opinion. -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:32, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're right, your example image seems technically similar. I think it would be useful to have a template for {{HDR}}. I've so far abstained from typing possible HDR knowledge on the description itself, as I've tended to reserve that box for information about the subject. I merely try to use the HDR mode as a helpful extention to salvage black/white clipping. It seems to help with reducing noise too. But I've found the Canon 5D Mark IV being quite excellent, and the need for bracketing mode has become more rare. Now that the sensor is so good - the difference in result between HDR and traditional often seeming trivial - I may not always even remember if I had used the bracketing mode for some of my past published pictures. I think Adobe Camera Raw has become better at natural looking tone mapping recently. --Ximonic (talk) 13:28, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ximonic: do you know you can separate the description and the technique with an extra line inserted in the {{Information}} template, like |other fields 1= {{Information field |name=Photographic technique |value= [[:en:Tone mapping|Tone-mapped HDR]] imaging.}}? See an example here.
The aspect of this picture nominated is very particular, different from my landscapes linked above (using HDR too, but different post-treatments), and from anything I usually see, that's why I abstain from voting. Jeffrey's Image Metadata Viewer indicates the shadows are enhanced 96%, and honestly I find the rocks a bit too luminous, like "unreal". You use the word "fake" above, it's not fake to me, but it's not natural either (not enough). The Canon 5D mark IV is good, however, no camera today is as sensible as the human eye, and that's a problem for every photographer in such situations. Here you made your own "cooking" and I respect your doses. HDR is usually necessary to reduce noise, but also to reveal an accurate range of realistic colors (the more you enhance the dark shades, the harsher the tints are). I know it's not possible to get this range without technical manipulation. In short, we have the choice between giving what the camera got, and that's not the eye-reality, or trying to produce what the eyes got at the instant, and that becomes complex with the software. I think this scenery has a potential, your attempt to translate your sight is probably honest with the sun in front, nevertheless, the result is so special, I'm not sure we would have shared the same experience. Subjective artistic tastes -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:27, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 14:16, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural/Spain#Region of Murcia
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Playa_de_la_Cola_del_Caballo_in_La_Unión,_Murcia,_Spain,_2022_January_-_2.jpg&oldid=630883005"