Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Col de Ronc Sureghes Urtijëi.jpg

File:Col de Ronc Sureghes Urtijëi.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Mar 2016 at 10:31:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info created and uploaded by Wolfgang Moroder - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:31, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I am putting this under "Places", but this also fits under "Natural phenomena", namely the clouds and fog. This is simply another composition I love looking at. It has wonderful three-dimensionality, variety of light, a great overall shape of a near circle of trees surrounding the clearing and village below, and the nearby tree in the lower right corner makes it even better. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:31, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 11:29, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Significant blown clouds. Areas of low contrast aren't appealing (whether caused by lens flare or mist). I wish the central region was better lit. -- Colin (talk) 13:18, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with Colin.--Jebulon (talk) 16:09, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful oppose I don't blame you for trying and it came out better than one might expect, but Colin is right about the blown areas. Daniel Case (talk) 22:29, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Info Have you still the RAW data? Try again as mentioned above and try to lighten up the grass area, that will be perfect. -- -donald- (talk) 08:36, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Moroder, maybe I should have asked you before nominating this photo, but I really like it. However, you can see that the voting trend is not favoring a feature. If you can and would like to take the step -donald- requests above, please go ahead and offer a new version as an alternative. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:40, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment On the contrary I'm most honoured for the nomination. I do not understand all the fuss with the overexposure since it is not present on the histogram or at least imho irrelevant. I have a RAW file but don't know how to process selected areas of a photo.--Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 14:59, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - The histogram shows a spike very close to the far right which indicates the blown areas have been "recovered" slightly. But looking at the jpg, one can see large areas of close-to-white all with exactly the same RGB values. Even without such analysis, one can see harsh transition to white in the clouds, which isn't appealing. Blown is blown, even if the levels are adjusted to off-white. Perhaps Photoshop Lightroom would do a better job than Photoshop Elements. I don't think fixing the blown areas would help with the low-contrast issue. I don't find the scene/composition nearly as compelling or special as Ikan. -- Colin (talk) 15:38, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- --Isasza (talk) 10:43, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose disturbing burned out clouds Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 08:47, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination. I still like this photo, but I don't see any likelihood of enough people voting to feature it. Thanks for taking the time to evaluate and comment on this photo, everyone. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:17, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]