Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Thyssen-Krupp-Quartier-Essen-Q1-2013.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:Thyssen-Krupp-Quartier-Essen-Q1-2013.jpg, featured[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Feb 2013 at 14:52:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info created by Tuxyso - uploaded by Tuxyso - nominated by Tuxyso -- Tuxyso (talk) 14:52, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Support -- Tuxyso (talk) 14:52, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Oppose Support To me it's much better now! --A.Savin 18:56, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Done I've corrected moiré and crop. Left, right and top is now symmetrical cropped. Support if possible (or change to neutral) --Tuxyso (talk) 16:02, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Interesting effect of light on the glass --The Photographer (talk) 18:19, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Colin (talk) 22:30, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry, but looks overprocessed. There is a rather strong haloing effect. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:13, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 23:18, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Neutral Better now, if not perfect. You cannot expect 100% homogene brightness distribution. ?? Yes, we can. :)--Jebulon (talk) 10:45, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Question HDR is always a matter of personal taste. But can you please mark the halos? I see none. The mood / light was that dramatic (setting sun shines at the building, including the nice reflections on the glass surface). --Tuxyso (talk) 05:59, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- The blue sky is slightly lighter next to the building, particularly on the top right. Perhaps you can fix that with a couple of very gentle gradiants in Lightroom or similar. Colin (talk) 08:31, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Maybe, but I think these are no halos (I must confess that I cannot figure out the meant areas even not in 100% view). Probably the effect is due to the use of a polarization filter --Tuxyso (talk) 09:23, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Not only the "blue sky" as noticed by Colin, but the same phenomenon is visible on the cloudy sky at left too. Actually, all around the building.--Jebulon (talk) 10:44, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Call me eyeless, I cannot see any problems. Please mark the areas with the note tool. @Jebulon: If you say halos all around the building you probably identified the construction for sun protection misleadingly as halo, see details on ThyssenKrupp website. --Tuxyso (talk) 11:50, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- I marked the most prominent halos. They are very strong, and more visible the smaller the image is (so it's not as noticeable in 100% as it is in the thumbnail). The effect is probably around 200-300 pixels wide and consists of an approximately gaussian brightness transition of the sky (becoming brighter) approaching the building, and a brightness transition of the building (becoming darker) approaching the sky. --Julian H. (talk/files) 15:35, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not familiar with HDR but would one expect a halo to be that large? Tuxyso, it is really hard to see at 100% but if you put the image in a paint editor and copy a small rectangle of sky to the far right, then paste it again and drag it leftwards you should see the transition to lighter sky. The effect is really more like a vignette -- perhaps that's what we are seeing and something easily correctable in Lightroom/etc. Colin (talk) 15:38, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- I marked the most prominent halos. They are very strong, and more visible the smaller the image is (so it's not as noticeable in 100% as it is in the thumbnail). The effect is probably around 200-300 pixels wide and consists of an approximately gaussian brightness transition of the sky (becoming brighter) approaching the building, and a brightness transition of the building (becoming darker) approaching the sky. --Julian H. (talk/files) 15:35, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Call me eyeless, I cannot see any problems. Please mark the areas with the note tool. @Jebulon: If you say halos all around the building you probably identified the construction for sun protection misleadingly as halo, see details on ThyssenKrupp website. --Tuxyso (talk) 11:50, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- The blue sky is slightly lighter next to the building, particularly on the top right. Perhaps you can fix that with a couple of very gentle gradiants in Lightroom or similar. Colin (talk) 08:31, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Done I've worked on the halos (nearly invisible on my monitor). Please take a further look and change to support or neutral if possible. I cannot really explain this effect. --Tuxyso (talk) 16:29, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- You have understood what we meant, but now, the correction is too strong...--Jebulon (talk) 20:07, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Done A further attempt, according to brightness values in LR it is now very balanced. What do you think? BTW: I am still not convinced that the halos were "very strong" (as stated above). We are now at a gradient filter of 0,34 EV (!!!) Probably the previous assesments were a bit "pernickety" --Tuxyso (talk) 20:24, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Right now, in the current version, the difference in brightness that should be 0 is still around 10%. Originally, it was around 20% (blue sky on top, directly on top of the building, compared to the blue sky about 150 pixels higher). I think that's quite considerable. --Julian H. (talk/files) 15:43, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Question What about the other areas (right and left)? It is very difficult for me to correct something that is not visible on three different (one of them callibrated) monitors of mine. Nonetheless: I will give my best. --Tuxyso (talk) 15:56, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Julian, please be aware that the sky is not the same shade of blue all over. It is naturally lighter towards the horizon and towards the sun. I'm not saying there isn't a halo or vignette but that one can't expect the sky to be constant. BTW: can folk please avoid using the "small" tag in discussions. It has considerable accessibility problems. -- Colin (talk) 18:00, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Info / Done I've again worked on the sky. Support or not... I can now only underline Colin's argument: This is not studio photography but a vivid photo with a cloudy sky. You cannot expect 100% homogene brightness distribution. --Tuxyso (talk) 21:19, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Neutral then. I don't expect 100% homogeneous brightness distribution, but I also don't think 10% variation within a few degrees of sky aren't natural. --Julian H. (talk/files) 21:37, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Right now, in the current version, the difference in brightness that should be 0 is still around 10%. Originally, it was around 20% (blue sky on top, directly on top of the building, compared to the blue sky about 150 pixels higher). I think that's quite considerable. --Julian H. (talk/files) 15:43, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- You have understood what we meant, but now, the correction is too strong...--Jebulon (talk) 20:07, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support — Draceane diskuse 13:50, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Great efforts; here. JKadavoor Jee 15:04, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Yann (talk) 07:20, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support - Godot13 (talk) 01:40, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 2 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 07:10, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture
