Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Railway station Kreiensen 1963.JPG
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:Railway station Kreiensen 1963.JPG, featured[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Feb 2012 at 22:58:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created by Michael Gäbler - uploaded by Michael Gäbler - nominated by Michael Gäbler -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:58, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- Support -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:58, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- Support Wow, 1963 work! Is this originally colour or did you convert this in software? --Jovian Eye storm 04:13, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you, these are the original colors of the slide. The sunrise has been at 08:17 a. m. on the date 16 January 1963 in Kreiensen. I took this image at 08:55 a. m., see the station clock. The purple colors are the colors of the morning sun. I don't know if the color of the slide has changed in the last 49 years. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:12, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- Support Tomer T (talk) 05:33, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose Don't see
any artistic meritand as an image, the quality is terrible: it is low resolution and even at that resolution there is no detail whatsoever. None of the people have faces. Flare in the middle of picture. Colin (talk) 11:26, 18 February 2012 (UTC)- This is a Contre-jour photograph. Contre-jour produces backlighting of the subject. This effect usually hides details, causes a stronger contrast between light and dark, creates silhouettes and emphasizes lines and shapes. The sun is seen as either a bright spot or as a strong glare behind the subject. See this featured picture: File:Vaalankurkku railway bridge.jpg. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:42, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- ... or a poor quality snapshot with a backlight/flare problem. The arrangement of people and trolleys is random. There's really less than 1MP of detail here. I do like the lighting, but low sun on snow is pretty just like a sunset is pretty: doesn't make it featurable on its own. Colin (talk) 22:23, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
- (update) Ok I was a bit harsh with the "artistic merit" comment. The light in the scene is very artractive and the silhouette a deliberate effect. Various lines/shaddows/brightness-gradiant lead the eye towards the centre. But then what do we see? A random collection of trolleys and people milling about. This is a bit of a let-down for the eye. I think other people are responding to the nostagia of a 60's period and costume, as well as the lighting. But sunrise/sunset pictures are naturally pretty and it needs more IMO. I would be interested to see a version without noise-reduction applied because I suspect that is responsible for the lack of any detail. This reminds me of a picture of Harlech castle at sunset that I took with a toy digital camera years ago. I'm quite fond of it, and the colours are great. But it is just too small. Colin (talk) 13:17, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
- This is a Contre-jour photograph. Contre-jour produces backlighting of the subject. This effect usually hides details, causes a stronger contrast between light and dark, creates silhouettes and emphasizes lines and shapes. The sun is seen as either a bright spot or as a strong glare behind the subject. See this featured picture: File:Vaalankurkku railway bridge.jpg. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:42, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- Support --Katarighe (Talk) 17:57, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose Unsharp, too bright, nothinb special impo. --Yikrazuul (talk) 18:38, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- The subject of this image is the railway station Kreiensen in the year 1963. Kreiensen is an example for other railway stations in Germany. Nearly everything changed in the railway stations in the last 49 years. Station concourses, switch towers, baggage trolleys are mostly out of order. It is today not allowed to desert his baggage or to go over the rails to the next platform and so on. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 23:31, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- Support --Vammpi (talk) 00:16, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- Question The overall quality of the image is rather bad (lacking sharpness, no film grain, smallish resolution). I wonder if this was due to the scanning process or due to digital enhancement? Could you provide further info on the equipment you used to create this image in the first place? Regards, PETER WEIS TALK 04:54, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
- I scanned the slide in the Nikon Coolscan V ED 35mm film scanner with Nikon Scan 4.0. I needed to take Windows XP, Nikon made no driver for Windows 7. In some time it will be possible to use SilverFast HDRStudio 8 with his driver for Windows 7. I used Dfine 2.0 to apply noise reduction. I cropped the Tiff-image with Adobe Photoshop CS2 and converted the Tiff-image with ViewNX to JPG. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:03, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
- Would be great if you could provide the unprocessed image. Regards, PETER WEIS TALK 04:54, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
- Info try VueScan.. you can use scanners without drivers for Windows 7. Probably this software works for you scanner too (in my scanner Minolta Dimage Scan Elite 5400 it works - it is the same issue - it has drivers only for WinXP). Ggia (talk) 10:06, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you for this information. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:03, 25 February 2012 (UTC) - I purchased the VueScan Professional Edition. It works with Nikon Coolscan V ED in Windows 7/64. Now I am able to scan Nikon Coolscan V ED with Vue Scan and as well with the scan-software by Nikon. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 01:42, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- I scanned the slide in the Nikon Coolscan V ED 35mm film scanner with Nikon Scan 4.0. I needed to take Windows XP, Nikon made no driver for Windows 7. In some time it will be possible to use SilverFast HDRStudio 8 with his driver for Windows 7. I used Dfine 2.0 to apply noise reduction. I cropped the Tiff-image with Adobe Photoshop CS2 and converted the Tiff-image with ViewNX to JPG. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:03, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
- Support -- This is a great picture. Impressed by the preservation. Chaojoker (talk) 06:15, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose it's an old image, and a good one, but nothing special to me. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 19:14, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
- Support Cathy Richards (talk) 21:54, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
- Support alofok* 10:13, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
- Strong support I think this picture is astonishing from artistic point of view. Yes, of course, you cannot expect 2012 quality from a 1963 picture, but the imperfection is what makes it authentic. It reminds me of surrealist painting, for example The Son of Man.--Joyradost (talk) 17:38, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
- Support Great picture. --Ritchyblack (talk) 06:10, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
- Comment If this photo is VI, it could be used in Wikimedia projects. Przykuta → [edit] 16:38, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you for this information. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:03, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 06:00, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places