Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Porto Covo March 2020-10a.jpg

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

File:Porto Covo March 2020-10a.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Oct 2021 at 12:24:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Street lamp
  • Thank you for noticing, Mile. Editing was careful but dust spots are very difficult to discern in such a dark background. I will fix them later today. As for chroma noise, what I can see are very faint clouds on a very dark sky. But I'll give another try with a better monitor later. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:52, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Info A new version was uploaded with the dust spots removed (thanks to your microscope!). No significant chrominance noise that I can see at 100%... -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:49, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Info I tried this yesterday, i croped to third, so center of bulb is on a third line, it works better. But i removed "o". --Mile (talk) 10:25, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Weak support Good thoughtful photo but I can't say the subject really holds any interest for me. Cmao20 (talk) 14:20, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support per Radomianin. --Aristeas (talk) 19:24, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Typically alvesgasparian. I like.--Jebulon (talk) 22:17, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:06, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I don't mind blown lights in general when they occur as part of a larger scene since they're very hard to avoid, but when it is the actual subject I think a better job could be done to control the highlights (e.g. HDR). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:56, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I respectfully disagree, a light is a light is a light. If anything on a photo is supposed to be blown, that should be … a light. In fact, being blown is the very nature of a light! Blown subjects are undesirable on a photo because they hide the detail. As far as I know, no present-day light sources have any kind of detail except, maybe, the old filament bulbs. Even in those cases, you would have to compensate so much that the light would no longer look like a light. Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:55, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I think if it's a small speck in the middle it's fine - the blown-out area here is a bit too large for my tastes. Also the lamp does have detail, as you can see in the bumpy surface in the non-blown-out parts. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:17, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose per Rhododendrites. If the background were dark blue, perhaps. Wrt the blown area, I disagree with King of Hearts. When looking directly at a light source, the DR will exceed a JPG and the human eye would only perceive the bumpy surface away from the strongest glow. So I don't have a problem with the central area being blown. However, I'd expect it to be at FF in at least one colour channel rather than paper-white. Have the highlights been reduced in post, or Nikon's JPG capped the brightness? -- Colin (talk) 12:19, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for your comments, Colin. Yes, the highligths were very slightly reduced. But not too much, for the reason you invoked about the (non)response of the human eye. I could have manipulated the background to look like dark blue, instead of almost black. That possibility crossed my mind but I felt guilty with just the thought... By the way, I was scared to death by the number of characters in your comment (666), as if the devil himself had joined the discussion... :) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:47, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I shall take more care over my byte count in future! I only suggested blue if it was indeed the blue hour, and not to fake it. I think we have a tendency on Commons to be terrified of the blown areas (Lightroom makes them too easy to spot with red warning) and think reducing the highlights to eliminate that angry red warning will somehow improve the image. Of course highlight reduction can help at times, but I think we should let light sources burn brightly. I'd rather my screen was shining as bright as it could than some odd paper white. Maybe one day we'll see JPG replacement that can do HDR get adopted for Commons. -- Colin (talk) 19:26, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Single-channel clipping would be fine for me as well, but not such a huge white area. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:38, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Regretful weak oppose Compositionally it's great; I like the abstraction and the symbolism it creates when you consider when it was taken, at the beginning of a dark time. That said, I think it would have worked better with the sky behind it not quite so dark. Daniel Case (talk) 17:28, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 21:15, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose per Rhododendrites. If there was a little something extra, perhaps. Black on dark gray is also quite unappealing in my view. I made a similar shot two years ago, but never uploaded it (before today) because the wow is weak -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:40, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Per Rhododendrites. -- Karelj (talk) 20:52, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  I withdraw my nomination -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:58, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Porto_Covo_March_2020-10a.jpg&oldid=599474693"