Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Sep 2015 at 17:47:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Mealt Waterfall with Kilt Rock, Isle of Skye.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Mealt Waterfall with Kilt Rock, Isle of Skye.jpg
Info The waterfall from Loch Mealt on the Isle of Skye falls 55 metres to the sea. Behind is Kilt Rock, 90 metres tall, so-called because the combination of basalt columns upon a sandstone base resembles a kilt. All by Colin -- Colin (talk) 17:47, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support High resolution photo of two notable natural features of Skye. The viewpoint is the very edge of the cliff nearby, and there is no better vantage point on land. -- Colin (talk) 17:47, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral --Mile (talk) 17:46, 7 September 2015 (UTC) So good while in thumb but when opened some huge portion on left side is out of focus. Makes some 20 % of photo area, too much. --Mile (talk) 19:31, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mile, more like 12.5% is the near-by grass, and many photos contain far more featureless sky. In the distance, you can see the Isle of Lewis some 25 miles away, and the rocks below the waterfall are quite lovely. -- Colin (talk) 21:33, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So its 12,5 %. What is the purpose of being Feautered then ? Simple push on touchscreen on that area and all would be solved, since is stitched anyway. Shouldn't Feautered wannabe photo deliver at least some minimal technical advantage ? Building megapixles shouldn't move that margin. --Mile (talk) 07:26, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You must not know other cameras than your Olympus then ;) (They don't all focus with a tap on screen). And not "all would be solved", it's likely distant objects would be out of focus. But I think settings are not optimal and maybe a better focus point could have been chosen to achieve en:Hyperfocal_distance. - Benh (talk) 07:44, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Benh, I agree using f/8 could have improved the in-focus area a bit, and the point of focus seems to be a little further than I intended. The grass does come really close so I suspect I wouldn't get it sharp enough to satisfy. The bokeh is rather busy, so perhaps a different lens would render it more pleasingly. At the end of the day, the grass is not the subject, which is in focus. I'm leaning as far as I safely can out from a metal barrier at the cliff edge, and it is 600 miles away by car, so that's all I've got. -- Colin (talk) 11:01, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's not the subject but it's close enough to be a little distraction IMO. But yes, I didn't mean "go back and reshot it" :) Just my review and advices for a next time (but I'm pretty sure you didn't really need them) - Benh (talk) 16:25, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think the reason the out-of-focus area appears large and obvious to you is the very 54MP high resolution so that at 100% the web browser shows only a tiny portion of the image. But please remember that when viewed at 100% on a 100dpi monitor, this image is 2.3 metres tall and 1.5 metres wide, which would run nearly the whole height of a UK standard sized domestic room. I hope that when looking at an image that big, you stand back a little and don't study the bottom left corner with your reading glasses on. Reduced 50% to 13.5MP the close-by grass isn't nearly such a large area on-screen when you view the bottom of the image. Reduced further to 6MP, say, and the area considered unsharp is very small indeed, and not at all unusual. A crop would unbalance the composition, for the sake of pixel peeping. -- Colin (talk) 20:23, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 20%? I opened it and mesure the out of focus area, I would have more say not more than 12% of a 54mpx image, so that stay a lot of good pixel. No doubt in the finest of Commons. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 07:03, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
True, Jebulon, but opinions have a habit of sticking to an FP once stated: "per XXX" often follows and is hard to shift, and less commonly the opposite happens if people reject the complaint. I'm happy for people to look critically, pre-informed of any potential issues, rather than a pile-on support that might not be warranted. I think it healthy to discuss a picture as well as any opinions made, provided things stay friendly. I don't think any of us believe we are experts at taking pictures or judging a picture, and the question of "what is a featured picture" is always up for discussion. I always think the audience for these pages is bigger than just the person who votes and the nominator -- so there are things others, lurking perhaps, can learn here such as avoiding having too much busy out-of-focus area or considering the use of hyperfocal distance to maximise the in-focus-areas. -- Colin (talk) 12:10, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, Colin. I just want to notice that very often, a "support" (or an "oppose") vote is due to the disagreement with the opinion (of the expression of the opinion) of another reviewer, not exactly aboit the picture by itself... It is a trap IMO. That's why I did not vote at first view, but only now. Let's wait, we get the time !--Jebulon (talk) 16:42, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose the issue for me is not just the size of the out-of-focus area, but because it's placement on the foreground and this is too distracting for me. Otherwise it's very nice. --Ivar (talk) 13:29, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I personally like to have control about how things render on pictures I take, unless I post them to Instagram or Facebook. Not a useless conversation IMO. - Benh (talk) 22:23, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I've been thinking about it. It's definitely impressive but I would rather have the single shot version promoted because of its bigger DOF. 18mpix is far more than enough for most uses, and there's still that one in case someone wants to cover a whole building with a poster. - Benh (talk) 06:54, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Benh, one issue with the single shot photo is that the slightly slower shutter has made the waterfall more of a continuous white flow, and I think it much better in the nomination. -- Colin (talk) 16:51, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fine with me. I'm one of those who like long exposure waterfall shots. But up to you. Let go this nom first and see then. - Benh (talk) 20:03, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Move my vote so Support. Without childish behavior of some, this would be on the way to promotion (though on the verge of failing as well...) - Benh (talk) 07:28, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The water is the main subject of this photo but i do not like ist. The Photo is in the most parts technically very good but the water is in parts sinmpe white, other parts are "not sharp, not typical water-unsharp". may be the exposure time ist to short. DOF is too short in left corner. --Ralf Roleček18:23, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it would be interesting to compare the above image with a near-identical one taken from a single frame at 18mm and f/9 rather than lots of 50mm frames at f/5.6. The wider angle and smaller aperture should give much more depth of field. There's a small difference in shutter speed (1/125 vs 1/160) and the second photo is lit by hard direct sunlight rather than softly from sun behind clouds. I've tried to process it so it looks as similar as possible. The brighter sun in the second photo enabled a much smaller aperture with only a slightly longer shutter. Since the original is 54MP rather than 16MP, I've uploaded a version of the above nomination saved by Lightroom to the same dimensions and you may wish to compare this to the full size version of comparison photo. Finally, here's the full size 54MP version.
Benh mentioned hyperfocal distance. The DoF markings on old manual lenses, and most online calculators, assume we are casually viewing an 8x10 print at arms length. The calculator at CambridgeInColour has a fancy "advanced" mode that lets you choose a more nit-picking measure for people who have put on their reading glasses but I can't get the "advanced" button to work today. I've yet to see any calculators designed for the digital age where people are viewing a small 100% section of your image on a 100dpi monitor at 30cm. I accept the nomination could have had a greater DoF if a smaller aperture was used, though I'd have had to increase the ISO which can then start to rob detail, or wait till the sun came out from the clouds as it did here. And you might not like the composition, which was limited by circumstances. I do wonder, though, if I'd nominated the image downsized to 16MP whether anyone would even have noticed the near-grass was out-of-focus. When I compare the two 16MP images, I'm not convinced having it sharp helps the photo, which is of a waterfall and cliff face. But I thought comparing a single-shot wide-angle might be informative. -- Colin (talk) 16:52, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting comparison. So 18mm f/9.0 renders quite good, which isn't suprising. The lens aperture diameter is 2mm. On your mosaic, the lens' aperture diameter is 50 / 5.6 = 8.9mm. More than 4 times the aperture of the single shot. No wonder it's more blurry. But I don't know if DOF is actually related to absolute size of aperture or not. I always say I have to find it out (read : find someone who did the calculation) but never do it. - Benh (talk) 17:14, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And btw, several DOF calculators exist out there, which take into account the sensor size and resolution. My guess to get the correct one for this picture is to input 18mm lens at f/2 and a 54mpix sensor (Canon 5DS comes close to it). - Benh (talk) 17:27, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, playing with the DoF calculator, at 18mm on my crop camera, f/9 wasn't necessary and f/4 or f/5.6 would have been a little sharper. -- Colin (talk) 17:42, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't know your camera was APS-C :) So based in f/5.6 at 18mm, you would have needed f/16. f/4.0 at 18mm gives you f/11 @50mm. Sounds right. - Benh (talk) 19:08, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Side discussion on sky, for those who are interested...
Out of topic but Skye does looks like a very beautiful place to visit. And it also looks like it's not affected by light pollution. Great for a milky way shot attempt! (I'm on a milky way momentum). I should certainly plan something. - Benh (talk) 19:20, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Benh Beautiful but also frequently wet. There will be plenty more photos from Skye uploaded and at FPC I hope. We were there the night of the recent meteor shower but it was too cloudy, and that's the problem. -- Colin (talk) 20:12, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(Not too) Cloudy can be good too. Even between a few clouds, milky way can pop out where there's no light pollution! I even find there's a little something to see it through the clouds. I wanted to go during the meteor shower too, but the weather forecast was very pessimistic then. I went the week after, but couldn't witness any shooting star with my bare eyes. Some ended up on pics. As for the panorama... the Flickr one has much better lighting. How sad it's this small! Guess she shared a downsampled version of the actual big one. Don't tell me you have the same view with similar lighting? ;) Would be great! - Benh (talk) 22:23, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
J'ai ai une avec seulement le paysage. Je ne crois pas avoir de version avec silhouette sans lampe frontale, mais il doit être possible de prendre le ciel de la version sans sihouette et de le mettre par dessus le rayon de la lampe frontale. Ça risque de ne pas être trivial vu que les nuages ont bougé rapidement. À moins que je ne prenne la silhouette et que je la colle sur l'autre ;) - Benh (talk) 06:51, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The cloud level was low most of the days we were on Skye; it rained most days and was often overcast when it did. Rain and overcast sky doesn't mix with photographing stars. And the rain brings out the midges, which certainly aren't compatible with hanging around in a field for an hour! I've never had much luck with the Perseid shooting stars in August. Last year in December we had an excellent (if absolutely frozen) night watching the Geminid meteor shower. We were forecast 100 meteors an hour and I would say that was accurate. But these showers tail off very quickly so I would certainly think there was nothing to see after a week. The camera, on long exposure, picks up more shooting stars than you can see, if pointed in a fortuitous direction. I didn't capture the Quiraing at dawn -- there are limits to what one can achieve on a family holiday! But I did capture that area on a nice day, so may have something worth sharing... -- Colin (talk) 09:00, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Checked climate data, and looks to be pretty rainy over there. My guess is that going further in land gets one a dryer weather. So I'd do that if I were to visit Scotland. Never witnessed a Perseid meteor shower myself, but judging by Boston Globe Big Picture's selection it's not more intense that what I got in Morroco in April where I've got one than a shot with several shooting stars (no online picture, but you'll have to trust me). Isn't it a bit overrated? The trails sure look thicker though. As for taking photos in a family trip... I've faced the same dilemma recently in Venice. My trick is to get up very early (3-4am) when everyone else is asleep and to go out by myself. As a side effect, you enjoy nicer lighting and empty tourist sights! Only I can't really scout out places and think my compositions first. But I think I got one or two interesting shots nonetheless. Waiting for your "Quiraing" take then. - Benh (talk) 20:03, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Info The waterfall from Loch Mealt on the Isle of Skye falls 55 metres to the sea. Behind is Kilt Rock, 90 metres tall, so-called because the combination of basalt columns upon a sandstone base resembles a kilt. All by Colin -- Colin (talk) 17:47, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Support High resolution photo of two notable natural features of Skye. The viewpoint is the very edge of the cliff nearby, and there is no better vantage point on land. -- Colin (talk) 17:47, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Neutral --Mile (talk) 17:46, 7 September 2015 (UTC) So good while in thumb but when opened some huge portion on left side is out of focus. Makes some 20 % of photo area, too much. --Mile (talk) 19:31, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Comment So its 12,5 %. What is the purpose of being Feautered then ? Simple push on touchscreen on that area and all would be solved, since is stitched anyway. Shouldn't Feautered wannabe photo deliver at least some minimal technical advantage ? Building megapixles shouldn't move that margin. --Mile (talk) 07:26, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
OpposePer mile,maybe a crop (I change my mind,also a 54MP must be clear and not blurred)--LivioAndronico (talk) 20:04, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
--Jebulon (talk) 16:35, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
