Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Upernavik cemetery 2007-08-06.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Dec 2011 at 23:46:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info created, uploaded and nominated by Slaunger -- Slaunger (talk) 23:46, 5 December 2011 (UTC)- Info This nomination is a tribute to Böhringers panoramas. When I saw his latest nomination I was reminded of some old photos from Greenland taken with a compact camera. I recalled one of the photos were out-of-focus, and I had given up stitching it. However, Böhringers photo inspired me to revisit the old photos and try again, this time also with better stitching software than back in 2007, and it turned out better than I had anticipated. The pano is not flawless, it has still a soft area in the foreground to the left of the large cross (see annotation on file page), and the overall image quality is a bit 2007ish. But maybe wow mitigates? --Slaunger (talk) 23:46, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Abstain As creator. -- Slaunger (talk) 23:46, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Neutral I remember a pano of yours which I voted for despite some flaws because Greenland is not one of these mainstream places. I still face the same dilemma here. It's a tad soft, and one shot was missed on the left (blurry band). The lighting is also very flat and doesn't help guess the shape (volume) of the landscape. But it's a beautiful place with an interesting composition, so I can't oppose. - Benh (talk) 12:33, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
- It is more than four years ago, you did that review, and you remember well!. I agree with your review btw, except for the "very flat light", but opinions differ... --Slaunger (talk) 13:25, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
- I did not realize it was so long ago... already. As for the light, I'm sorry to insist, but the peninsula (looks like so) is evenly lit, which is why I mention it's flat, and why we can't tell the volume (or relief). If you like it that way, it's another issue :) - Benh (talk) 18:31, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
- As Groucho Marx once said. Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana. Upernavik is located on a small island 2.5×1 km, see the geocode map on the file page, if you are interested. 1100 inhabitants and 2000 Greenland dogs... --Slaunger (talk) 20:57, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
- I did not realize it was so long ago... already. As for the light, I'm sorry to insist, but the peninsula (looks like so) is evenly lit, which is why I mention it's flat, and why we can't tell the volume (or relief). If you like it that way, it's another issue :) - Benh (talk) 18:31, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
- It is more than four years ago, you did that review, and you remember well!. I agree with your review btw, except for the "very flat light", but opinions differ... --Slaunger (talk) 13:25, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Oppose -- Such an interesting place to shoot! And still I have the annoying feeling that something is missing at the bottom. Crop too tigh, sorry. Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:58, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
- I understand. I think I could give it some room below, but at the expense of the sides. I'll look into that tomorrow. I wish I had had better equipment then, and the knowledge I have today. There were so many awesome sights there. --Slaunger (talk) 22:03, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Comment I'd really love to have this on our gallery! It really is a unique location. This has better lighting than your FP. But I fully agree with Gaspar. Once you upload the new version I might help you with the blurred band: since it is relatively little, I can improve it with some patient cloning, sharpening/blurrying job (in case you are interested). But first fix the crop: this one has a great light and not such a bad resolution for 2007, I think it could be featurable, plus; I love the icebergs: they are so illustrative about how cold the place must be, even in sunny days! --Paolo Costa (talk) 03:03, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
- Paolo, thank you for your kind offer. I am very much interested in getting help with the editing, as it is not an area in which my competences peak the most.
This evening, I will upload the full resolution stitch with black areas and all. It gives a better impression of give-and-take possibilities concerning the crop, and what you can clone from. I will also have a look in my file repository for more wide angle single shot photos of the cross the same day. As I recall, I have some on my NAS. Cheers from Denmark. Concerning the whether: At summer time it was my experience that the wheather could be in three states: Dense fog 45%, storm 10%, blue sky with no wind 45%. When in the latter state, the climate felt very mild. When in the latter state you could actually often just wear a T-Shirt, an open wind breaker and jeans. Average high temperature of 8 deg C in July and August, but when sunny and in calm wind it feels warmer. There were days, where the temperature was higher than in Northern Italy in the summer of 2007. The sea temperature is always around 3 deg Celsius independent of the season.--Slaunger (talk) 11:19, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
- Paolo, thank you for your kind offer. I am very much interested in getting help with the editing, as it is not an area in which my competences peak the most.
- Comment I agree with comments about the too tight crop at the lower edge. I have uploaded the full, uncropped version from the stitcher, and if other editors feel they can come up with a better crop, or can do some nice cloning to fill in some gaps or repair the soft region, I would be absolutely thrilled. --Slaunger (talk) 20:30, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
- It really is a shame about that empty space in the lower part... that would have definitively improved the already attractive composition. That really is the reason why I tend to take some huge margins now when I take panoramic picture :) - Benh (talk) 20:45, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
- I just found another set of photos from the same location taken 1-2 weeks after! I had totally forgotten that back then I also found out I did not cover a field of view, which was large enough. Unfortunately, that set appear to better cover the lower part, but also seems to have huge parallax issues at the big white cross. I will try to work with that, but it will require quite some hours of fiddling and masking work. I'll be back! --Slaunger (talk) 20:55, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
- If it's from similar point of view, and similar lighting, then it should be possible to properly add it into the other set of pictures in the stitching. The missing part shouldn't bring up parallax issue as far as I can see. If parts are still missing, I think you can get a good result by filling with careful cloning. You seem skilled, so let's wait and see the result. - Benh (talk) 22:11, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
- I just found another set of photos from the same location taken 1-2 weeks after! I had totally forgotten that back then I also found out I did not cover a field of view, which was large enough. Unfortunately, that set appear to better cover the lower part, but also seems to have huge parallax issues at the big white cross. I will try to work with that, but it will require quite some hours of fiddling and masking work. I'll be back! --Slaunger (talk) 20:55, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
- It really is a shame about that empty space in the lower part... that would have definitively improved the already attractive composition. That really is the reason why I tend to take some huge margins now when I take panoramic picture :) - Benh (talk) 20:45, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination--Slaunger (talk) 20:30, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
