Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Tiškevičiai Palace at dusk, Palanga, Lithuania - Diliff.jpg

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

File:Tiškevičiai Palace at dusk, Palanga, Lithuania - Diliff.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Dec 2014 at 13:04:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  •  Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Claus -- Claus (talk) 13:04, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- Claus (talk) 13:04, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Waaayyy overprocessed. Whites are blown, colors look unnatural and the resultl ooks like la nuit americaine in reverse. Kleuske (talk) 12:04, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't really understand your comment about it looking like la nuit americaine in reverse. The colours look perfectly natural to me though (given the lighting conditions), and the only whites that are blown are directly next to bright halogen spotlights. Not really easy to compensate for that. What specifically do you think looks overprocessed? Diliff (talk) 18:22, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • La Nuit américaine probably refers to w:Day for Night (film). Regards, Yann (talk) 10:17, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks Yann. I guessed that much, but I don't understand how it relates to this image. La Nuit américaine is when daylight footage is artificially darkened to make it appear to be at night. So I would guess that Kleuske is suggesting that it looks like a night time image brightened to look like daylight. Well, that's just what long night time exposures often are. You don't really see star trails when you look up at the sky, but it's a legitimate type of photography nonetheless. Not every image should look exactly as it appears to the human eye, especially not night photography. Diliff (talk) 14:07, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • If the subject were star-trails, i would not have that much of a problem with weird lighting, and long exposures sure have their place in photography. This however, is not a very good example in my opinion. There's no apparant reason for or advantage to a very long exposure in this case. The same image taken by daylight would have made a better image. In this case it just looks weird. That's entirely your artistic freedom, but I do not consider it FA-material. Kleuske (talk) 15:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment a bit bright IMO -- ChristianFerrer 12:13, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Sorry! The photo seems to me completely unnatural colors and do not fit in your other photos. I'm afraid that you've edited it broke with photoshop. --Steindy (talk) 18:45, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think what you are interpreting as unnatural colours is the result of the white balance being set for the incandescent lighting (so that the building itself is creamy white). This has the effect of making the garden and flowers tint quite cool. Other than that, I really don't understand the problem. Perhaps someone can explain in more detail. Diliff (talk) 22:11, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support unusual and very good, right for me both color and exposure (considering the different light sources) -- Lauro Sirgadocontribs 22:07, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 14:17, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Tiškevičiai_Palace_at_dusk,_Palanga,_Lithuania_-_Diliff.jpg&oldid=141874388"