Wikimedia Commons

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Monumento Natural O Frade e A Freira - Luciano Daniel (02).jpg

< Commons:Featured picture candidates

File:Monumento Natural O Frade e A Freira - Luciano Daniel (02).jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jul 2023 at 12:39:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

 

Alternative version edit

 

  •   Support @Poco a poco: There's this version by the same author; it seems better to me. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 15:27, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Comment I feel like neither of these could have been composed of photos taken at the same time. In other words, the sky and ground must have been shot separately at different times and then combined, plus other alterations. Does anyone disagree, and if so, how would you explain getting such a vivid view of the Milky Way when there is that much light on the ground - or even in part of the sky? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:47, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ikan, I checked the area and there is no much civilation around the area. The light might come from Cachoeiro de Itapemirim, which is about 10 Km away. To me it looks possible but unfortunately the EXIF data is gone. Poco a poco (talk) 18:09, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't understand the issue here. For really good church photos, most photographers take a bunch of photos over a long period of time, with different settings for focus and light options, resulting in a jumbled timeline. We call this HDR and praise the author who had the patience, skill and programs to merge this into a lovely image. We are so used to this, that it is not always declared on the file page and we take that in stride. But at soon as an astronomy photo shows up, it "must" all be done in one shot (or 2-3 only seconds apart) or reviewers nitpick, and act like there is something shady going on if the same HDR technique is applied. --Cart (talk) 14:15, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The difference is that the church photo looks more or less like a plausible view someone might have seen, whereas this does not. You can't have a clear view of the Milky Way unless the rest of the sky is very dark, and the sky is not very dark if there is much light on land. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:24, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, that's a much more obviously unrealistic photo. To be fair, I didn't vote on that nomination, but it's interesting that it was a picture of the year finalist. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:09, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    in many photos, photographers choose to add artificial source of light, which was the case here. Nothing wrong with it I believe. I reckon it should be stated and that it can be misleading. Benh (talk) 14:48, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    and btw, to distinguish both the sky and the land, suffice it that both have a similar level of exposition, which can be the case when a moderately close city emits even little light. It is also a very common practice to merge several photos into one. For example, some will take the ground at low iso (possibly before it gets very dark) and merge it with a sky taken at a later time when it's darker. Again it alters reality and can be misleading, but I think it is acceptable if done in a subtle enough way. - Benh (talk) 15:14, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I appreciate this dialogue, but I'd point out that sunlight is not artificial light, it's just light that existed in a different time than any sky that shows the Milky Way to the naked eye. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:36, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • More likely that the photographer moved. The foliage in foreground does not overlap, nor does the angle, camera settings seems to have been altered a bit too (check them as layers in Photoshop). The photos are taken from two slightly different locations. --Cart (talk) 13:32, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I only pointed out that the camera location had shifted. I don't trust the time stamp on these photos at all. Mainly because I don't think that this is taken after three in the afternoon. We have no idea how the time stamps came to be, so I ignore them. Even though I think we should be open to the use of HDR (which sometimes results in jumbled/strange timelines) for astronomy photos in general (see post above), I personally don't think that either of these photos are good examples of that. The intention was good, but the craftmanship in creating such photos should be more structured for FP and the composition more compelling. --Cart (talk) 23:36, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 01:03, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Monumento_Natural_O_Frade_e_A_Freira_-_Luciano_Daniel_(02).jpg&oldid=788492035"