Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ebrach Kirche rose window Orgel P4252411efs.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Nov 2019 at 23:05:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
Info Seufert organ from 1743 and rosette window in the former abbey church in Ebrach. All by me -- Ermell (talk) 23:05, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Support -- Ermell (talk) 23:05, 9 November 2019 (UTC)- Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:55, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:48, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
- Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:11, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Aristeas (talk) 08:12, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 10:00, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
- Support Nice, could you add the template
{{panorama}}in the descritpion page to indicate how many frames were used? Poco2 10:13, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
- @Poco a poco: This is not a panorama. The picture was taken in high resolution shot (HRS) mode where the sensor moves to catch more pixel. Works only with a trypod.--Ermell (talk) 20:33, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Cayambe (talk) 10:46, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:00, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
- Support — Draceane talkcontrib. 17:18, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 18:27, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Comment The image looked a bit odd to me in close up. I had a peek at the EXIF and you have got very high values for colour NR settings, which would tend to reduce detail and create a plastic effect. Compare our existing FP File:Kloster Ebrach BW 5.JPG which despite lower resolution, looks more realistic and natural on the figures and carvings. I've never had to raise Lightroom's standard level of Colour NR in my own photos, only touching Luminance NR when required. -- Colin (talk) 18:59, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
- @Colin: I know the picture, of course. The rosette alone is not that difficult. If you take the organ into the picture it is always too dark because the church only has windows in the upper part. I have summarized three differently exposed pictures using LRenfuse. The smoothing of the edges of the window took some time.--Ermell (talk) 20:51, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
- Enfuse isn't the best program for HDR. You might be better off trying Lightroom's own tool (if you have a current version) but the best I have found is PtGui and then taking the 32-bit TIFF back into LR. If you want me to experiment for you, drop me an email with a link to the raw files and I'll send you back a JPG. -- Colin (talk) 07:58, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
- Update: I assumed this high resolution JPG was the result of a stitched HDR. Rather it is actually using the high-resolution mode of the camera. I think it is remarkable that one raw file could be processed to capture the dynamic range here. However, the actual resolution captured by the 24-200mm (equivalent) super-zoom lens is much lower than the 78MP presented here. Some effort has been made to increase the apparent sharpness, but at the expense of a loss of realism and too much NR. So, for this kind of scene, I still think "our finest" techniques are stitched HDR, and this image looks a bit too over-cooked for my taste. I think therefore my vote is
Oppose despite having some remarkable qualities. -- Colin (talk) 13:28, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
- Too bad, a version of PtGui for comparison could have been really interesting. However, thank you very much for the offer of editing and the extensive evaluation.--Ermell (talk) 21:44, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
- PtGui needs several exposures to generate an HDR file. I think it does a better job than Lightroom's own HDR . If you had taken several exposures (with exposure bracketing) then we could have tried this. As it is, I'm impressed that you got the detail out of the window on this one exposure. -- Colin (talk) 07:58, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
- Update: I assumed this high resolution JPG was the result of a stitched HDR. Rather it is actually using the high-resolution mode of the camera. I think it is remarkable that one raw file could be processed to capture the dynamic range here. However, the actual resolution captured by the 24-200mm (equivalent) super-zoom lens is much lower than the 78MP presented here. Some effort has been made to increase the apparent sharpness, but at the expense of a loss of realism and too much NR. So, for this kind of scene, I still think "our finest" techniques are stitched HDR, and this image looks a bit too over-cooked for my taste. I think therefore my vote is
- Enfuse isn't the best program for HDR. You might be better off trying Lightroom's own tool (if you have a current version) but the best I have found is PtGui and then taking the 32-bit TIFF back into LR. If you want me to experiment for you, drop me an email with a link to the raw files and I'll send you back a JPG. -- Colin (talk) 07:58, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 22:50, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:50, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Agree with Colin. Too strong NR, and weird tones rendering. - Benh (talk) 10:22, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
- Support There is some valid criticism of the strong noise reduction above, but it's OK for me given the very high resolution. Cmao20 (talk) 14:03, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
- Support --XRay talk 17:01, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
- Support --Boothsift Is Here 05:25, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Weak oppose per Colin. Daniel Case (talk) 01:41, 14 November 2019 (UTC)- Support Colin's points might be valid, but do not outweigh the overall qualities of the picture for me (balanced exposure, great detail). --Axel (talk) 12:18, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 17 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:53, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
