Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Hope Bay-2016-Trinity Peninsula–Arena Glacier 03.jpg

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

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Oct 2016 at 04:44:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Arena Glacier ice flow meets Hope Bay waterline
Code, "Color Space = Uncalibrated" is the expected value for AdobeRGB. The only permitted values in that field are sRGB and Uncalibrated, which should be read as "Not sRGB". The profile is what counts for those web browsers that are colour managed, and I agree that AdobeRGB isn't good for web use as some browsers (including all mobile browsers I'm aware of) are not colour managed and so do not display the colours correctly. AdobeRGB is for printing, not web. -- Colin (talk) 09:47, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Colin: Thank you, I didn't know that. Strange anyways as AdobeRGB isn't what I'd call "uncalibrated". --Code (talk) 10:24, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral - This is a pretty spectacular scene, but the brightest areas are completely blown. Do you have any similar images that don't have such large blown areas? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:05, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Not judging about image quality at this point: I would have found it very dangerous to approach the glacier front to such a small distance! Plus it seems to be an active calving front owing to the many loose chunks. Low EV I am afraid. --AWeith (talk) 10:04, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment @Code, Colin, Ikan Kekek, and AWeith: - There is nothing I can do to improve the sharpness (and it was shot from a moving zodiac). I can still see some texture in the smooth snow above the edge (if that's the blown area being referred to). I would have thought the EV of this image was the close proximity of people providing an immediate sense of scale (nothing to do with calving). I will see if I have any other raw files I can work up as an ALT, or withdraw and offer something different. Thanks for the comments.--Godot13 (talk) 17:09, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Regarding the argument of the moving Zodiac, I do not not see any motion blur; also, I guess that at a focal length of 135mm and an exposure time of 1/320 one would not necessarily induce it. I designate this motif very attractive, though; I, therefore, recommend to adjust the white levels and the dynamic range of the image to satisfy the critiques of burnt white areas. - I am still concerned about the innocence with which the guide at the helm was approaching this obviously unstable glacier front. --AWeith (talk) 18:55, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment - I don't think the places where I can see texture are the very brightest areas. That said, even if not completely blown (and I maintain that, at least on my browser, some areas do indeed look that way), the brightest areas are certainly very glary. I'm sure they looked glary in person, too, but it seems to me, some details are lost, though others, as you point out, are visible. I'm still considering voting for this, due to the rest of the picture and the pure impressiveness of the view. You might consider cropping out the nearest unsharp foreground areas, though, about half the distance to the boat. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:54, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral I like the idea of this, but between the flood of comments above and the CA on the people in the raft I will hold off on a !vote. Daniel Case (talk) 16:24, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Daniel Case, Ikan Kekek, AWeith, Code, and Colin: I will go back to the raw file and create a separate but nearly identical file to work on. As the original nominated is already featured on English Wikipedia I do not feel I can alter (write over) it. Thanks for everyone's input and I'll ping when the ALT is up.--Godot13 (talk) 19:06, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support I prefer non cropped version. --Lošmi (talk) 18:32, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • ALT Added - Per suggestions above the following have been addressed to some degree: highlights, crop, and CA. I hope this is better.--Godot13 (talk) 19:58, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ALT

Forgot to ping @Daniel Case, Ikan Kekek, AWeith, Code, and Colin: .--Godot13 (talk) 01:31, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this is a significant improvement. I'm not fully convinced, but this is after all an impressive scene, so mild  Support from me for this version. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:04, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wary  Support per Ikan. However and ever again: can you imagine what would happen to the zodiac crew when the big and unstable chunk of at the very top comes down, releasing quite a number of icy bullets aiming at anything in the near? The weather appeared to promote such a scenario, lots of icicles indicating warm temperatures. --AWeith (talk) 08:12, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support This version looks ok for me (in regards to picture quality, after reading AWeith's description, I'm even more wary of ice vs sea than before). cart-Talk 17:45, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Mile (talk) 06:49, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Hope_Bay-2016-Trinity_Peninsula–Arena_Glacier_03.jpg&oldid=211028729"