Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Tongerloo abbey-Panorama.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:Tongerloo abbey-Panorama.jpg, featured[edit]
Voting period ends on 8 Aug 2009 at 21:41:41
Info created by JH-man - uploaded by JH-man - nominated by JH-man -- JH-man (talk) 21:41, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Support -- Just put a lot of work into this and wanted to see where it would end up. Be gentle 'cause it's just a lousy Powershot ;-) JH-man (talk) 21:41, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
- Info I realized the colors looked a little bland and needed a boost, so I produced a v2 that looks more pleasing(nobody voted yet so no impact).JH-man (talk) 20:53, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
- Support I think you have done well. I am indifferent concerning which edit. It is an interesting building, and the quality is good. A Powershot is not bad at all, you can make very fine panos with such a camera, when you use several images as you have done. Out of curiosity. How much time have you spend stitching it manually in Photoshop? Ever considered using other software for this purpose such as Hugin? --Slaunger (talk) 21:20, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for your interest and support! Well, to give you an idea from what I started, here File:Tongerloo_abbey-Panorama-stitch_start.jpg is how it looked after lining up the segments. I spent more or less the entire evening. Most of the trouble was in the clouds. I had some 'in between' pictures also, from which I was able to extract a couple of complete clouds that fit in better, but that still left trouble with inconsistent shades in the sky that needed to be corrected. Then I also had to remake the final picture after I realized that I had forgotten to work on the edges of the parts than ran through the building itself and the grass field, lol. But anyway, I have fun with those things so it wasn't too bad. I didn't try panorama software because somehow I didn't expect that to reach the kind of quality (without further extensive editing) that I would be able to reach manually in Photoshop? Also because I didn't use a tripod. Took the pics freehand.... But maybe I should look into that software. JH-man (talk) 21:39, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
- I have never used a tripod for my panos on Commons, which all except one has been taken hand held with a compact camera (I used a stone as support for one pano). I have always used Hugin for stitching. Despite that, the two panos i have ever nominated has been promoted. I do not think I could achieve the same results by manual stitching. But it depends on the how well you master which tool of course. I would consider linking to the initial edit instead of showing it here, as it is distracting for other reviewers. --Slaunger (talk) 21:51, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for your interest and support! Well, to give you an idea from what I started, here File:Tongerloo_abbey-Panorama-stitch_start.jpg is how it looked after lining up the segments. I spent more or less the entire evening. Most of the trouble was in the clouds. I had some 'in between' pictures also, from which I was able to extract a couple of complete clouds that fit in better, but that still left trouble with inconsistent shades in the sky that needed to be corrected. Then I also had to remake the final picture after I realized that I had forgotten to work on the edges of the parts than ran through the building itself and the grass field, lol. But anyway, I have fun with those things so it wasn't too bad. I didn't try panorama software because somehow I didn't expect that to reach the kind of quality (without further extensive editing) that I would be able to reach manually in Photoshop? Also because I didn't use a tripod. Took the pics freehand.... But maybe I should look into that software. JH-man (talk) 21:39, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
- Support the color-boosted version. I was amazed to read that this is manually stitched. The stitch is absolutely perfect. -- JovanCormac 17:00, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
- Support
color boosted.either. Hand stitched? Impressive. --JalalV (talk) 07:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC) - Support - either version, but I prefer the original version - more in the spirit of an abbey. Nice job. Downtowngal (talk) 15:38, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- Support Either version because they are both excellent Julielangford (talk) 08:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- Support the original. Color boosted version is just oversaturated. Nice work. —kallerna™ 11:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- Support color-boosted version, Tintero (talk) 19:28, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
original result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 13:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC) version 1 result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 13:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
