Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Viborg Kraftvarmeværk NW view 2014-07-06.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:Viborg Kraftvarmeværk NW view 2014-07-06.jpg, not featured[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jul 2014 at 23:03:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info created, uploaded and nominated by Slaunger -- Slaunger (talk) 23:03, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Support -- Slaunger (talk) 23:03, 8 July 2014 (UTC)- Support -- Christian Ferrer Talk 11:23, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose -- Very uninteresting foreground, sky and lighting. Lacks wow.Fotoriety (talk) 00:30, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
- @Fotoriety: Thanks for the review. Regarding the foregound and surroundings in general I left some space around to allow the building to "breathe". For me the featureless foreground helps the main subject to stand out. Is it correct that you think it should have been cropped tighter? I am sorry you do not like the lightning. I really like it myself and how the sky and coads are partially reflected in the curved ceramic shields surrounding the building. Anyway, there are so many possibilities for taking photos of this building regarding the vantage point, time of day and weather conditions. It is almost like a chameleon to me. If you look at the other photos in Viborg power plant, are there any elements in the framing, light vantage point in some of the other shots which are worthwhile to explore further in your opinion? I live close by, so it is easy to take new shots at it. Or, are you just non-wowed by this building in general? --Slaunger (talk) 06:31, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
- @Slaunger: It's hard to say how i would like this photo to be taken because i don't know the dynamics of the environment. However, i agree that a tighter crop would help; as would perhaps lighting such as the bright glow from a sunset also being reflected in the facade. Perhaps also if the photo could be taken at a higher level to give greater depth, that may improve the composition. However, i realise it's a power plant, so room for manoeuvre may be limited. Hope that helped.Fotoriety (talk) 01:07, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
- @Fotoriety: Thanks for the review. Regarding the foregound and surroundings in general I left some space around to allow the building to "breathe". For me the featureless foreground helps the main subject to stand out. Is it correct that you think it should have been cropped tighter? I am sorry you do not like the lightning. I really like it myself and how the sky and coads are partially reflected in the curved ceramic shields surrounding the building. Anyway, there are so many possibilities for taking photos of this building regarding the vantage point, time of day and weather conditions. It is almost like a chameleon to me. If you look at the other photos in Viborg power plant, are there any elements in the framing, light vantage point in some of the other shots which are worthwhile to explore further in your opinion? I live close by, so it is easy to take new shots at it. Or, are you just non-wowed by this building in general? --Slaunger (talk) 06:31, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
- Support Excellent photo! --Nobelpeopleuploader (talk) 22:10, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Neutral I'm sorry K, it's a very good quality picture (a no brainer QI) but there has to be something else for FP, imo. Maybe a more dramatic lighting or sky ? I believe a polariser would have given you a terrific sky here. The right building also ruins it IMO. To end with a positive note, I like the composition and the angle you took it from. - Benh (talk) 11:38, 13 July 2014 (UTC)- Oppose I'd have gone for a tighter crop, avoiding the right building altogether. I'm puzzled why exposure bracketing was necessary since the overall image seems to lack large dynamic range. I agree with the suggestion to go when the sky is more dramatic (or make it so with a polariser). Do you think f/11 was necessary? If doing it again, I suggest taking advantage of your stitch to downsize/sharpen/+clarity to make the image look sharper while retaining high resolution. -- Colin (talk) 12:11, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
- weak Oppose no wow here for me even although it is a good QI. I recognize your work with panorama and exposure fusion. But the quality (sharpness, detail level) is probably slightly lower than a single images taken with a D600/D800/5D Mark III and a good lens. So the technical quality is not outstanding enough, we need WOW also. I like the reflections you mention, but it's not enough WOW for me. From a composition point of view, I think File:Viborg Kraftvarmeværk N view 2014-07-06.jpg is better.--ArildV (talk) 10:40, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
- @Fotoriety: , @Benh: , @Colin: , @ArildV: . Thanks all for your helpful comments, and sorry for the late response: Just back from Berlin/Brandenburger Tor being German for one day while seeing a certain highly profiled football match:) I follow your critique. I have never tried using a polarization filter, I will try experimenting with that. Concerning bracketed exposure, I had used a non-optimal set point for the exposure, which did not optimally use the dynamic range, and I should have waited until later to get more dramatic light. I am torn about the crop. One of the architectural ideas with the building is that it should give associations to a ship cruising on the ocean, and to do that one needs some 'ocean' , to give the context of the surroundings, but that building to the right is distracting and ugly I agree. Fotoriety: A higher vantage point is regrettably not possible. ArildV, you are right. The quality is depressingly low when considering the effort of stitching 6 photos each with 3 exposures. I am really disappointed with my kit lens, and I should really get some better glass. But I just have to try harder. The building is nearby, and eventually I will manage to create a photo of great wow of it, as the subject really deserves it. It is actually very wow, when you pass it, I just need to figure out how to capture that. --Slaunger (talk) 12:12, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
- I recommend getting a 30mm prime, or thereabouts (a 50mm is less useful on a crop camera for landscape stitching). My 30mm (which is also, bizarrely, a full 1:1 macro) is very sharp. It is a little plastic crop lens so wasn't expensive at all and very light on the camera. Don't know if there is something similar for Canon. Of course, if you have plenty money and don't mind the weight, Sigma do some very nice Art lenses. -- Colin (talk) 12:33, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
- @Colin: . Thanks for the advice. I actually went down to the local photo shop today after reading your proposal. and tried out different lenses on the 600 D. I ended up preferring a 40 mm prime f/2.8 from Canon wo IS (I normally disable IS anyhow when using a tripod for these shots)! The lens is quite inexpensive, but is not a macro lens though. It's called the pancake lens because it is very thin and light-weight. It is now on my wish list:) I also ordered a graduated grey filter to try and use that to get a better sky - they did not have the correct adapter ring, so have to wait a few days...-- Slaunger (talk) 20:28, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
- I recommend getting a 30mm prime, or thereabouts (a 50mm is less useful on a crop camera for landscape stitching). My 30mm (which is also, bizarrely, a full 1:1 macro) is very sharp. It is a little plastic crop lens so wasn't expensive at all and very light on the camera. Don't know if there is something similar for Canon. Of course, if you have plenty money and don't mind the weight, Sigma do some very nice Art lenses. -- Colin (talk) 12:33, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
