Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Hedeselskabet 2016-04-01-HDR.jpg

File:Hedeselskabet 2016-04-01-HDR.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Dec 2016 at 21:53:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info When Denmark lost the Second Schleswig War to Preussian forces in 1864, it lost a considerable amount of land, see FP of the retreating forces. This led to an increased awareness of the importance of better utilizing the remaining agricultural resources in the country under the motto "Hvad udad tabtes skal indad vindes" (approximately: what was lost externally, shall be reclaimed internally). In 1866, a group of entrepreneurs in Viborg, Denmark formed a producer-controlled corporation called Hedeselskabet (the heath association). One of their objectives was to reclaim moors in central and western Jutland for farming; mostly sandy land abandoned in the 14th century as a result of the Black Plague, but in many cases good for potatoes. Hedeselskabet was thereby part of the Danish cooperative movement emerging in the period 1790-1960. Hedeselskabet still exists today as a private company with its headquarters in Viborg, and it has undergone a lot of organisational changes and it has activities in several countries within agriculture, forestation, environmental area. The current headquarters by C. F. Møller Architects were completed in 1980. I think this 58 Mpixel HDR panorama shows well an architecture, which is closely integrated with the soil, well in line with the history and current activities of the company. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:53, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Info Created, uploaded, nominated by Slaunger -- Slaunger (talk) 21:53, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Slaunger (talk) 21:53, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:12, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 23:27, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:27, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:08, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great "snake-y" angle (although the left edge of the building is leaning slightly inwards) --cart-Talk 07:14, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Yes - but left side must be corrected. --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 08:11, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment W.carter, Villy Fink Isaksen: Thanks for your reviews. You are right about the leaning LHS side. I'll have a look at it - need to re-stitch with added vertical control lines and re-develop in Lightroom. Hold on... -- Slaunger (talk) 10:15, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Joalpe (talk) 10:44, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Info King of Hearts, INeverCry, Ikan Kekek, Johann Jaritz, W.carter, Joalpe: I have restitched the panorama and uploaded a new version, where the inwards leaning left-hand side is corrected. When I was about to do the tone-mapping of the HDR panorama in Lightroom, I pressed a wrong button meaning I lost the original tone-mapping, crop, sharpening and noise reduction settings. So I have re-developed it from scratch in Lightroom, which means these setting have changed slightly, although I have tried to get it as close as possible to the original upload. -- Slaunger (talk) 11:57, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:08, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support now. J e e 16:10, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well done, good composition --Michielverbeek (talk) 08:56, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, technically a high level and the history is interesting. But in my eyes the setting and the motif itself is too little photogenic for FP. --Milseburg (talk) 09:04, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I like the detail on the building, but can the doubling of the grass blades in the lower left be corrected? Daniel Case (talk) 03:59, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I would second that request. I don't remember seeing that before, somehow. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:10, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Case, Ikan Kekek. You are right wrt your observant review. There are parallax errors in the foreground grass in the lower left section of the image. Not easy to correct as it is three bracketed exposures and it is a handheld panorama. I live very close by, and happened to come by while bringing my camera, but not my tripod, noticing exceptional good light. I could apply a smoothing gradient to introduce some artificial feeling of shallow DOF to simply smooth out the irrelevant details of the foreground grass, but I do not want to change the image now that many have supported the current version or propose an alternative. As a matter of fact I am proud there are not worse parallax errors given there are trees in the foreground with many little twigs, and also slight wind. 9 years ago I had bigger problems. There are actually small problems on the left-most tree at the top, but I do not find it that relevant as it is really the building which has visual focus. But feel free to update your vote. I was actually reluctant to even nominate it due to these technical imperfections, but thought, hey, not all are as pedantic as myself. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:17, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Having another look, all it would do is change my vote to mild support, rather than strong support, because as a whole, this is an excellent panoramic photo of a unique building with good documentation. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:59, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Zcebeci (talk) 06:19, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Laitche (talk) 14:43, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 14:25, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:51, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--Mile (talk) 08:45, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture