Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Chevrolet Malibu 1977 BW.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:Chevrolet Malibu 1977 BW.jpg, not featured
[edit]
Voting period ends on 20 Jan 2014 at 19:11:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info Chevrolet Malibu 1977 BW. All by --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 15:34, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Support --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 15:57, 15 January 2014 (UTC)- Support BW improves the old car.--XRay talk 14:08, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Oppose Interesting idea, but I can't get behind B&W for a new picture. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:44, 12 January 2014 (UTC)- Support Michael Barera (talk) 02:21, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
- Support --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 03:17, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
- Support --Joydeep Talk 07:55, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose Histogram is all squashed together at the bottom; image is way too dark. Judging from the shadows, this was taken in harsh sunlight, so it should be much brighter. Would support a version with corrected levels. Lupo 11:38, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
- Compare with File:Chevrolet Malibu 1977 Color.jpg! Something went wrong when this was desaturated. The B/W version has a completely different histogram. If re-done, would need to start afresh from the color version. The color version, however, has a problem in the sky where I placed the image note: it's way too red there. Remnants of this are still visible in this B/W version. Lupo 11:52, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Done Thanks for your comment. Sky is fixed --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 12:40, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks, sky is better, though that mountain looks a bit artificial (very straight mountain slope). Also, the bushes there are now heavily blurred, and that sign has gone, too. What is it with that top left corner anyway? The color version also has been photoshopped there. Why? How did this corner look in the original, and why do you feel there's a need to photoshop that corner so heavily?
- Unfortunately, the histogram in this B/W version is still badly skewed, making the image way too dark. Lupo 13:10, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
- Done The montain in "original" version is really artificial. I built photography based on another of the same montain, I think that histogram is fixed. Nice review --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 14:53, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry, the histogram still looks the same. It's shifted to the left, topping out at about 200, with the range above basically empty. The distribution is completely different from the color version. I tried desaturating the color version myself: a little gamma correction in the highlights, bringing the gamma down a notch to bring out more details on the ground in the foreground left, and then a luminosity-based desaturation. That gives a, IMO, much better balanced B/W picture. But of course, it still has that problematic upper left corner from the color version...
- The mountain is now really better, but again this rather heavy-handed edit now lost the left half of the triangular sign on the pole, and gives a strange effect where the shrubs to the left of the pole are dark, and immediately to the right are very bright. If you could upload a color version with the original, unedited upper left corner, I can give this a try myself to produce a B/W version.
- I like this image, but I also think the less editing is done the better. Lupo 16:24, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
- You're becaming maniac with the histogram, I invite you to see image itself. There is no perfect histogram, each image has a different exposure which creates a different histogram. A perfect histogram kill artistic compositions --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 17:19, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
- No, I'm not a maniac. I find the image too dark and too subdued, and the histogram and especially its comparison with the color version tells me why. But you're free to disagree, of course. Lupo 20:11, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
- Support Halavar (talk) 01:04, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- Support --Urmas Haljaste (talk) 10:11, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose Not bad, but it's a long way from "not bad" to " featured picture" IMO. I see here a bw picture of an old car, and it is not outstanding to me, sorry.--Jebulon (talk) 17:36, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose I agree with Lupo and Jebulon. — TintoMeches, 13:55, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Comment Seems a complicated nom ([1], [2]). Please don't close until 19:11, 20 January 2014. Jee 16:00, 16 January 2014 (UTC)- Oppose As other opponents. --Karelj (talk) 09:59, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
