Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Iceberg with hole near sanderson hope 2007-07-28 1.jpg

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

Iceberg with hole near Sanderson Hope, Greenland.

  •  Info Uploaded, created, and nominated by --Slaunger 07:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Info I've seen several icebergs with a hole, but never one where the connecting arc looks so fragile as on this iceberg, which was spotted near Sanderson Hope on a boat trip between Kangersuatsiaq and Upernavik in Greenland. I am aware the photo has technical flaws and I wish there was some sort of scale on the photo. I estimate the peak of the iceberg extended about 35 m above sea level. Actually I have a whole series of photos of this iceberg from the time before it had the hole and until it broke in two, which I will upload shortly. That process took about a month. -- Slaunger 07:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral --Slaunger 07:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- Pudelek 11:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support--Mbz1 12:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support--69.51.160.104 15:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Looks tilted, low sharpness. --Beyond silence 19:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Comment The tilt is now corrected, I had just noticed myself. Concerning sharpness, you are right it is not the best in some areas of the photo (one of the technical flaws I mentioned), and it cannot be fixed. However I did manage to remove some of the noise in the sky as well (another technical flaw). -- Slaunger 20:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Karelj 20:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Leafnode 05:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- Sergey kudryavtsev 13:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose - Sorry Slaunger but photographic quality is not good enough. The picture has little detail, as if some extreme denoising tool were used, and the subject is not sharp. Also, the white balance seems off and the crop is too tight on the iceberg. Alvesgaspar 17:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Info I certainly understand that viewpoint, and I agree to a great extend about the technical flaws you mention. I would like to mention though that I have not used any extreme denoising tool. I have applied a selective Gaussian blur with a pixel radius of three but I set the contrast threshold to a very low value such that I could not see any change in the detail level of the iceberg itself. This helped slightly on the noisy sky but not much. The main problem is that the right part of the iceberg is not sharp from the beginning. Actually, I have been surprised that there have not been more opposing votes until now due to these technical flaws. I guess what triggered my nomination was the nomination by mbz1 of a quite similar object below, and I thought lets have some hole-in-iceberg fun at FPC! Concerning white balance you may be right. I am not very knowledgable about this. How do you spot it and how does one correct it?-- Slaunger 19:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for your explanations. As for the white balance, that is a tricky business to spot. What we identify as "white" with our eyes may vary with the "temperature" of the light, which is related to the wavelenght spectrum irradiated by the light source. Light from daylight, sunset, tungsten bulbs, fluorescent lamps, flash, etc. all have diferent "whites" (temperatures), and are registered diferently by our cameras. The question is our brain tend to adjust automatically to those differences and put a tag of "white" in everything supposed to be white by its experience. Any standard image editing application has ways to adjust the white balance, normally through the "temperature". In your picture it may well be the case that the colours are accurately depicted, the problem is we (I ?) are used to see icebergs less coloured Alvesgaspar 09:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • And thank you for explaining me about the colour balance. I guess it is the bluish hue you have noticed? This colour actually represents quite well how many icebergs appears to the eye in most daylight conditions - at least with my eyes and my twisted brain ;-) -- Slaunger 09:48, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Unfortunately, I do agree with Alvesgaspar. This time, originality of the subject isn't mitigating enough to me. Benh 17:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Poor technical quality, sorry. -- Ram-Man 23:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 I have reconsidered my nomination. On close inspection I find the technical quality is so low, that it would have been embarassing for me if it were featured. Thank you for the comments! -- Slaunger 07:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] 

result: withdrawn => not featured --Benhello! 12:08, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/Image:Iceberg_with_hole_near_sanderson_hope_2007-07-28_1.jpg&oldid=141879453"