Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ruisseau du Vialais - March 2021 - B - BW.jpg

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

File:Ruisseau du Vialais - March 2021 - B - BW.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jul 2021 at 19:01:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Stream and fallen tree.

Alternative[edit]

  •  Support From the same RAW file as above but this time all done by me. Much more sharp, and still some wow effect regarding the atmosphere / mood but less than the monochrome version IMO. -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:01, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support One of the rare cases, where I like ND filter, because it fits perfectly. I more prefer the colored version though :) --ElooKoN (talk) 19:25, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Very pleasing, high value on the aesthetic axis. On the other hand, the educational value of such shots, while well done and beautiful, are somewhat limited from my point of view – there’s not really much information to gain here. Drastically speaking, there are valleys like this to be found in many mountaineous regions all over the globe, so I fail to see what’s so special about this one. Don’t take me rude please, of course there’s nothing really bad or wrong here. So I am not going to oppose. Just a little bit tending to be out of scope since Commons is not about aesthetically beautiful images in the first place, right? --Kreuzschnabel 11:02, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Several things to answer here. Firstly far from me the idea to be rude with you, Kreuzschnabel, we crossed one each other several times from years here or in QIC, and without reminding myself if I always agree with you I'm sure that I'm always interested by your photos or by what you have to say about photos. Therefore the fact that you don't have any reasons to oppose is already a good thing from my point of view. So thank you for your comment. The aim of Wikimedia Commons is to store media "providing knowledge; instructional or informative". Question: how can you able to know that this place is precisely like that wihout such photo? how can you able to know that in this place there is a litle stream that can grow up to the point to (likely) uproot trees and create banks of more than 2 meters highs (for the story I finished my descent from the bank on the buttocks :)). If we follow your logic, what is the difference between one street of one town and a street of another town? they may be sometimes very similar, doe's that mean that only the photos of streets where there is a monument or a famous buildings are in scope? There is also a lot of mountains in the world... does that mean that we can only promote photos of "special mountains" and not the "special photos" of mountains. This is exactly where we approach to talk about of the "wow factor". This is a photo of a quite ordinary stream in a quite ordinary country, yes, but there is a rather dramatic atmosphere which emerges, which makes that not the place but the photo is special. Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:10, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Tell me stupid, but IMHO the photo does not look at all like a typical HDR image, it just looks like a photo taken in the wood with high contrast. If I develop a simple RAW file of a photo taken in the wood with high contrast (i.e. some sunlight here, shadows elsewhere), without any fancy adjustments, it looks like this – and Christian has even resisted the temptation to lighten the shadows, therefore the shadows are very dark, very realistic, i.e. IMHO absolutely not HDR-like. (Cf. examples of ‘artistic’, i.e. overdone HDR.) --Aristeas (talk) 07:19, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed that is not a HDR, it is 30s long exposure taken with a filter as well noted by ElooKoN a bit above, then edited manually in Lightroom and in Photoshop. However Aristeas I have to moderate your statements a bit, in order to not to have the sunlighted areas entirely burned I had to limit the exposure, and the result is the shadows in the right part of the image in the RAW file are very strong, even almost black, and the lighted areas are of course very bright. Hopfully the camera registered all the details for the shadowed areas, and a lot of details for the brighten areas. But I had to lighten the shadows a lot to obtaim the current result, trying of course not to overdo it, and I had to decrease a lot the highlights for the sunlighted areas too. So more you have to touch it more it's hard to recover a natural aspect, so it's quite logical that some persons find it not natural, I did my best but it's very hard to make such an extreme RAW file looking natural. Christian Ferrer (talk) 09:04, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, sorry, I took it for self-evident that most RAW photos of a high contrast landscape are photographed ‘underexposed’ to preserve the highlights (more or less applying ETTR; better explanation, scroll down to “Exposure”), and then, when developing the RAW file, the midtones and shadows are brightened again. That’s a standard procedure and goes without saying. What I wanted to say is that you did not lift the shadows too much – the shadows are still dark, the blacks are still black, and this is what distinguishes the photo very much from the usual overdone HDR look in which both the lights are too dark and the shadows too bright. But I am sorry if I have interfered with your debate, I just was astonished that the photo was associated with HDR and wanted to question that impression. --Aristeas (talk) 09:40, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, to discuss photography is a pleasant thing. Christian Ferrer (talk) 10:26, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 03:43, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural/France#Hérault
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Ruisseau_du_Vialais_-_March_2021_-_B_-_BW.jpg&oldid=577519459"