Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Panoramic Overview from Glacier Point over Yosemite Valley 2013.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 5 Oct 2013 at 20:18:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

High resolution panoramic overview over Yosemite Valley photographed from Glacier Point
  •  Info High resolution (136 Mpx) panoramic overview over Yosemite Valley photographed vom Glacier Point
    created by Tuxyso - uploaded by Tuxyso - nominated by Tuxyso -- Tuxyso (talk) 20:18, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- Tuxyso (talk) 20:18, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Great work. --Laitche (talk) 20:32, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- mit welcher Software hast du das zusammengebaut? --Böhringer (talk) 20:38, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mit Hugin 2012.0. Ging völlig unproblematisch, außer dass es auf meinem Laptop mangels Speicher nicht klappte. Zu Hause mit 16 GB RAM und schnellem Prozessor völlig unproblematisch. Das mehrzeilige Panorama besteht aus 63 Einzelbildern. English: I used Hugin 2012.0 as Software. 63 single images in multiple raws where stichted without serious problems on a 16 GB RAM computer with a i5 2550K processor. --Tuxyso (talk) 20:48, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Wow! darkweasel94 21:36, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support — Julian H.✈ (talk/files) 21:53, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose -- Very poor lighting (lack of shadows on mountains) gives this scene a lack of dimension. Composition unspectacular.Fotoriety (talk) 00:06, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, but I cannot really follow your arguments. Your formulation "Very poor lightning" does imho not carefully considering the photo. BTW: There are some shadows (look at the Half Dome). The main motive here is the overall Yosemite formation (moutains + valley). Light at midday is not "very bad" because the complete valley AND the montains are lightened without extreme shadows. My main purpose here was do to a very detailed documentary image of the valley and surronding mountains and for that case midday is for me the better time of day than the more atmospheric light in the morning or in the evening. --Tuxyso (talk) 08:42, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Diliff has created some lovely pictures of this with sunset lighting (File:Glacier Point at Sunset, Yosemite NP, CA, US - Diliff.jpg and File:Half Dome from Glacier Point, Yosemite NP - Diliff.jpg). However those capture a different area (though still have the Half Dome and there are some nice waterfalls to the right of the Half Dome that would have been good to include). Our purpose on this project is educational material, not to create postcards or panoramic posters to sell from the tourist shop. While lovely lighting and picture-postcard images are fantastic to have and rightly featured, we should also support those attempting to provide "detailed documentary images" (as Tuxyso puts it) where the lighting supports detailed study rather than being merely attractive. The Internet is full of "downsized for web" highly processed picture-postcard images with watermarks and restrictions that look fantastic but don't have great educational use because you can't study any details and you can't republish them for free.
However, I'm reluctant to support for now because I think the image is significantly titled in the area of the Half Dome and below. Compare Diliff's pictures. The trees are a giveaway. I think it is important for such geologically interesting formations, to get it straighter than this. Colin (talk) 09:13, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your detailled assesment. What do the others think about the perspective? Visually I see no significant tilt. But for sure it was aligned but Hugin and you have no real verticals here for orientation. If there a really perspective problems I guess I have to manually influence the stitching process. --Tuxyso (talk) 09:22, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I took a crop of the right-hand side and opened it in Irfanview. Then took Diliff's Half Dome picture and reduced it 80% in size. Yours and his can then be aligned up to be surprisingly similar apart from the lighting. Yours is a little fatter horizontally, but that's to be expected from projection changes. Using the selection rubber-band rectangle tool, I drew a vertical from the pointed tip of the Half Dome down the a light patch in the rocks far below. Then rotated yours -4.5 degrees to get it the same. The mountain range on the far right still doesn't come up as high as Diliff's, requiring another degree perhaps, but then the dome is rotated too far. Another comparison is looking at the craggy peak to the left of the dome compared to the distant range to the right. In Diliff's these are almost level, whereas in yours the right is far below. However, to show how hard this is, I can compare Diliff's half dome with his wider pano. To do this, reduce the half dome by 45% instead. You will then see his wider pano is significantly tilted anti-clockwise , making the right hand mountain range much higher than the left.
Overall your pano does show the right hand mountain range curving downwards where perhaps it should be closer level with the left. A 4.5 degree tilt is quite a lot, assuming Diliff's half dome is correct. Colin (talk)
  •  Support Very nice. I disagree about the poor lighting statement. When viewed at full size, the walls have nice texture and relief, and there are walls in many different directions, so it's difficult to have a perfect hour to frame it all, probably not so difficult for a "detail" shot, e.g. the Dome only. I'm not sure about the scale (how high the walls are would be very useful in the description) but there must be some climbers in it, I couldn't find any, they must be two or three pixels. --Kadellar (talk) 12:21, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are right. I have seen them with field glasses and also made a short video sequence where you can see them moving.
      @Colin: I am unsure about the right perspective. Later I will nominate an alternative with a manually modified projection where I tried to adress your comments. But the stitiching is very time intensive. --Tuxyso (talk) 12:32, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • {{s}} Very nice and very good IMO--Miguel Bugallo (Lmbuga) 23:46, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative

[edit]

Confirmed results:
Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Gidip (talk) 01:50, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Panoramas
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Panoramic_Overview_from_Glacier_Point_over_Yosemite_Valley_2013.jpg&oldid=106415350"