Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Arashiyama Bamboo Grove Benh 2018-10-17.jpg

File:Arashiyama Bamboo Grove Benh 2018-10-17.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Oct 2019 at 17:44:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Japan
Info uploaded by B2Belgium, the rest by me -- Benh (talk) 17:44, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support In case you can't get enough of my back, and with a less terrible cloth on. For those who don't know, this is usually an insanely crowded place. I have a version without me, but this shows better the scale of the bamboo grove in my view. -- Benh (talk) 17:44, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hmmm, that grove is always impressive to see, but since it is parted by a path leading from A to B, it suggests movement and I think it would have been more appropriate to have someone walking instead of just standing there. Ermell had the right idea in this.--Cart (talk) 19:25, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'm not good at doing the walking guy ;) - Benh (talk) 21:46, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please also note that the conditions are not the same. It was darker than you might think. So longer exposure. - Benh (talk) 21:49, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Don't underestimate yourself, you do a good walk. ;-) And you could fake being on the move while standing still. --Cart (talk) 22:13, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I could try to stand still. Exposures weren't that long. I shouldn't argument because this is when of personal pointd of view kick in. But since we've been on a chatting streak... ;) It didn't cross my mind to do the johnny walker (it did on the steps) because I simply was "amazed by the height of the bamboo forest" (yes the caption says it all). What you see, even though staged, actually reflects how I felt and I really was staring like this. I'll try your suggestion if I get the chance to go there again. Or you could if you go before me ;) - Benh (talk) 22:30, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I only do moonlight shadows. That takes some standing still too. ;) --Cart (talk) 22:58, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Light is not good, too white --Michielverbeek (talk) 20:55, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Michielverbeek: Could you expand on this please? If you talk about the blown out sky, that's the best one can do without it looking unnatural (I'm even thinking it's a bit too dark, but it's more how if feels when you are there). I actually could bring out the blue and orange colors but it would look very weird. - Benh (talk) 21:46, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm talking about the sky blown out and the bottom part is a bit dark. IMO it was just not possible to make a featured photo at that time of the day --Michielverbeek (talk) 07:04, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can do something about the bottom part (which is already brightened) but for the sky you are asking for the impossible in my opinion. You can check. And I like the effect of the bright area drawing sort of a palm tree when looking at the picture from distance. About having the sun higher in the sky, not sure if it would help much, but at automn, that would mean heaps of tourists in the frame. Not because on many case a bright area is wrong means it is wrong on all pictures (my two cents). Thank you for your input. - Benh (talk) 07:31, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment undecided yet. Great idea! When I was there, the place was packed with people. Any chance you can get rid of the chroma? --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:33, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think I really thought long about it and couldn’t find a way... I can try to do it manually. It is true that the chroma is quite prominent. Thanks. - Benh (talk) 05:57, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Light is too harsh. Very bad quality, sorry: noisy and important CAs. The trees are blue. Not the right moment of the day. Also the static pose lacks natural -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:18, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Basile, I appreciate your inputs. It is noisy (not to boots... come on) because I took a shoot with less overexposed sky... I can't do exposure blending because the branches move, unlike temples. And downsize it to 12mpix, you'll see it's much cleaner. Have you also checked how many 24Mpix photo of that you have on the internet? You should treat pictures you review the same way you expect us to treat yours. - Benh (talk) 21:31, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my take of this place. 0,8s, ISO 50, slightly higher resolution, no noise, no blurry leaves, and normal colors. It seems that yours was taken early morning, mine in the late afternoon. I think I'm fair in my judgment, Benh. Remember votes are subjective (you were alone to oppose this one of mine, for example). Here we are already 3 users to reject this one, and my vote is in the consensus. Probably we don't appreciate light the same way. Many of your pictures are amazing, but this one suffers from important technical problems, really. This is a moderate and very honest review -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:18, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Basile Morin this is not the same conditions. You don't have high contrast because you don't show the upper part with the sky, and your leaves are as not tack sharp either. The light is also "harsher" on yours (less diffuse). Harsh light and blown out area are not the same. "noise", "blurriness", "harsh or not light", these aren't subjective issue. I just want to correct wrong facts. You may not light the light, but it's not harsh. I totally agree that it's too blue and has noise. I challenge people to find a similar shot without the very clear sky. - Benh (talk) 07:32, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, not only I upload a 24,6 MPx image that was supposed to be inexistant on the web, but also especially for you the same subject under better conditions. Frankly, how could I review more equitably? No, my bamboos are not blue. But cut your sky maybe for a more explicit correlation. What is "wrong facts", seriously? We all occasionally meet these kind of special situations where the contrasts are a bit severe. Well, solutions exist to avoid blown areas and colored surfaces. If the exposure had been correctly set on your camera, you would certainly have got decent contrasts and accurate tints & shades. Also, why shooting @200 ISO with a tripod? The perspectives in yours are not vertical, that gives the false impression the plants are naturally curved that way. Sorry this nomination does absolutely not inspire me. There's a similar image in the Lonely Planet book of Japan, much more attractive and successful. Greetings -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:52, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

wait, "better conditions" is not so sure. Had I taken the same at the same time of the day, the contrast would have been higher. I was there in the afternoon too. I shoot ISO 200 because that's the lowest this camera can do ;) And I think I've proven I know solutions exist. Just that in this specific case it's a little tricky. Either I take one shot and lift the shadows, at the cost of noise, or I blend exposures with overlapping moving branches. I did it to some extent on the lower part (less noise if u look). In my view, the noise is not a deal breaker here, and who will pixel peep at this kind of picture? But I'm reworking on it. After the inputs I think I screwed it. It won't solve the bright area... a bright thing should render white, and this, I won't change. But I will fix the blue cast, the noise and see if I can lessen the CA (I don't think so). Yes for the perspective, I added some barrel distorsion in post cuz I like the effect (which caused a lot of failed nom for me in the past). This is subjective, I won't change :) And it doesn't matter if the nom fails because of that. - Benh (talk) 10:05, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When I was there in June, the sun rose at 4:45am. So early the place might be desert. Then not only you're alone, but also the light can be just adequate. This is very challenging at day time, but well, we judge from the result. Also, where was the sun at that moment, in front or behind? That also is important and affects the final appearance. How do you explain my bamboos look green, at the base, and not those ones? -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:58, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Basile Morin: I was there in the early morning and in the afternoon. This is the early morning shot with the sun rising on the right (can't be seen). You can have an idea here. Look closely and you'll see the bottom is orange (I just let it bright). My bamboos look blue because I screwed up my processing. I will fix (work in progress there). Not sure I'll nominate again, but I will see. Thanks again for this talk. - Benh (talk) 19:04, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Martin and Basile. Great idea, subject and composition, but the harsh light / overexposed sky and the quality drawbacks mentioned make any reuse difficult --Kreuz schnabel 20:23, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hmm ! Surprised with the unanimous opposes. I thought this shot was special (it usually wows people I show it to). Also surprised with the harsh light criticism... the sun was rising, and with it usually a soft light. One can look and won't see my own shadow simply cuz the light was diffused. Some people sell the shot with more blown out area for 4000 bucks. I do agree with the CA (can't do much) and with the too blue tones. I'll do what I can to fix. Thanks a lot for the inputs (will cancel the nom). - Benh (talk) 21:31, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Per Basile, sorry. On a side note, bamboo aren't trees . --Booth sift 22:05, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

thanks ;) - Benh (talk) 07:32, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Additional note The F/value seems wrong in your metadata -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:08, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I use a manual lens, so it shows f/1. Don't remember which aperture I used... - Benh (talk) 07:35, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Thank you for the honest inputs. Hope you didn't take it wrong that I challenge them (I consider we're not on Flickr and here to discuss) - Benh (talk) 07:35, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /MZaplotnik^(talk) 09:30, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]