Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Vista de Moros, Zaragoza, España, 2015-01-05, DD 04-18 HDR PAN.JPG

File:Vista de Moros, Zaragoza, España, 2015-01-05, DD 04-18 HDR PAN.JPG, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jun 2015 at 19:44:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
Info View of the small village of Moros and its surroundings, province of Zaragoza, Aragón, Spain. The whole village of Moros lies on a hill, with the most relevant buildings in the top (church and former town hall), the residences in the middle and the sheep pens at the bottom. The current population of Moros is 441 people (35% of the population one century ago, that's why many houses are abandoned). The picture is the result of the blend of 15 pictures (panorama stitch of 5 frames x 3 frames for HDR). I try it again after this nomination didn't work. All by me, Poc o² 19:44, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 19:44, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 21:35, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Love it. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:44, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it, many very good elements. However, the post processing shows a little bit too much as a contour line all across the horizon, where sky meets hills. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 02:04, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great picture but per Tomascastelazo. --Code (talk) 04:10, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Tomas, Code: I have uploaded a new version where the fringe between sky and hills is reduced in the 2 right frames, where the issue was more noticeable. Poc o² 05:24, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:55, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great. (I feel similar technique as Diliff's works.) --Laitche (talk) 09:02, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Poco uses a very different technique (exposure fusion) rather than tone mapping. I personally don't like the result, I don't think it's very realistic looking, particularly for the sky. Diliff (talk) 19:32, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, but the thing is that I am happy with the result. And I could affirm the opposite and say that the result of tone mapping looks sometimes like a painting. There is no realistic HDR picture IMO. Can we do it like this? I pass you the RAW files of this pano and you pass me the RAW files of one of your pictures (I'd choose one that I feel doesn't look realistic) and then we upload the result and let other judge. I'd be curious what others say. Poc o² 20:25, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Info I put some notice windows. First is for crop, i would crop left from the road which ends behind hill, since "important" stuff (town) is moved so far to the edge. Second, more problematic, i see at least 4 unbalanced exsposure gradiences in the sky (vignetting ?). They are pretty visible, even more obvious if you check them on smartphone. --Mile (talk) 09:16, 6 June 2015 (UTC) --Mile (talk) 18:01, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I've also realized that colors gradually changing like this. Maybe it can be corrected with Lightroom 6.0. Villy Fink Isaksen fixed that problem with Lightroom 6.0. --Laitche (talk) 10:18, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Laitche, Mile: I have just uploaded a new version addressing some color issues along with the visible gradients (for this I applied an inverted Gaussian filter of the sky in Photoshop). The bottom crop is now also more generous. Poco² 12:06, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - That problem is fixed but seems the Photoshop filler is bringing unnecessary strange effect... added the note. --Laitche (talk) 12:24, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - Gone now, thanks, that was a sloppy, sorry, Poc o² 13:57, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think you cover horizon + border some pixles down, so its not just there where Laicthe marked but all over horizon. Maybe better to restore previous version back and try Gauss without going into the land, just sky. It will be work, but worth to do it. --Mile (talk) 12:46, 6 June 2015 (UTC) --Mile (talk) 18:01, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support great! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:24, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~ Quality is a bit low but great composition. Smoke can be a bit disturbing. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 10:56, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
ArionEstar: Can you please let me know where do you see low quality in the current version. Actually I enjoy that smoke as a sign of life in the village Poc o² 12:06, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A kind of white border at the top of the mountains. Maybe excessive processing? 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:12, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It deserves my Support. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:15, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure what you mean. There is no fringe anymore. Please, be aware, taht the sun hid behind those hills and causes that the area around them is brighter Poc o² 17:48, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Zoom at the note to see. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 18:04, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the note, but I cannot see anything particular in that spot, sorry. Poc o² 19:17, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I support anyway. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 20:00, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I know, but that is not the point. If there is an issue in the picture, I'd like to see it in order to fix it. Poc o² 22:08, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure but maybe Arion means halos between mountains and the sky and also not sure these are halos or not but I added the note. (and that spot which Arion noted maybe there is just a little bit halos? on the right side of the rock...) --Laitche (talk) 07:35, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@ArionEstar: You may be too picky when judge the photos, they look at photos at 100% not 400% zoom... in my opinion :) --Laitche (talk) 08:31, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I don't know if these are halos or not. But that doesn't ruin the photo. I'm sorry for the confusion caused. :( 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 10:04, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think its much better now. --Mile (talk) 17:59, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 18:05, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good view. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:07, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Astonishing. -- Pofka (talk) 20:01, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support $Jacopo Werther iγ\partialψ=mψ$ 22:17, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  Comment, sorry. This seems to just be me, but if I see a photo where the sky is clearly much darker than the ground even though the ground is exclusively lit by that very sky above it and isn't white, that looks very wrong to me even at first glance. It just doesn't (and can't) happen in reality. I understand why the sky is darkened here, it permits higher saturation, but I don't understand why the ground has to be so bright. — Julian H.^✈ 17:02, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point but I am not sure wether the picture is that wrong. Why did you oppose right away, doesn't it make sense for me to upload a version where the bottom part is aligned with the sky? Poc o² 17:19, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, the reason for the oppose was not that I thought it was unfixable. Changed it to a comment if that's less harsh. I usually don't hesitate with voting with so many supports in, when there is already a pretty good consensus that the photo, as it is, should be FP (and I'm therefore not very likely to cause any change). — Julian H.^✈ 17:46, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Julian: sorry, I didn't ask you to change your vote, I was just asking for time to address your comment. I have uploaded a   new version with a more balanced lighting between top and bottom. I think that it actually looks better know, and who knows, maybe it goes towards Diliff's expectation, as well Poc o² 20:25, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, it is definitely better, enough to not oppose it. But I still tend to agree with Diliff - so I'll think about it, or just stay   Neutral. — Julian H.^✈ 18:27, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Diliff: what do you think about this version? Poc o² 17:03, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I just don't like the processing of this. As I keep saying in other nominations, the HDR processing is not done well IMO. The sky looks very wrong (dull and faded and unsaturated), there are halos and as Julian says, the foreground is actually lighter than the horizon which is the source of light for the foreground. It just doesn't look right to me. I like the view but I cannot support an image that looks so unrealistic. Diliff (talk) 19:24, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See 2 comments above Poc o² 20:25, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is a slight improvement. The foreground looks better now, but the transition between the foreground and sky is still not good. The sky being darker than the foreground is only one of a number of problems I have with the image though. Mostly it's the overall tonality that doesn't look right to me, which is the same problem I have with most of your HDR images. I don't mean that to sound harsh, but the truth is that I find Tufuse's results unattractive and from past experience, you aren't interested in changing it (I've suggested a better workflow a number of times and you've said you're happy with the results of Tufuse). If it was an issue that was simple to fix, I would probably have waited for the fix before voting, but I don't think it is - it would require a major rethink in how your image is processed. But anyway, I don't see the problem with voting first and striking it out if the problem(s) are addressed. Diliff (talk) 22:28, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Slight oppose So much was done right ... the detail is fine all around. But David's points about the still-artificial character of the lighting and the visible overprocessing in some areas still stand despite the improvements. Daniel Case (talk) 15:32, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Alright, they have been addressed to my satisfaction. Daniel Case (talk) 16:00, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Tremonist (talk) 13:54, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ Even after the discussion between ArionEstar and Poco2 above, I still clearly see a distracting and strong glow where the hills meet the sky. I am not convinced that HDR is strictly necessary for this scene -- and even if it was, the author should greatly increase the "smoothness" or "radius" slider on your tone mapping software, or use one of the established methods for edge aware HDR merging which do not introduce these unsightly halos. Dllu (talk) 01:27, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support after Poco's last edit. Looks acceptable now even though the panorama is almost entirely brown. The view and level of details is nice. dllu (t,c) 15:50, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Agree with Daniel Case above. Support Gra phi um 15:32, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Graphium, Dllu, and Daniel Case: I have uploaded a last version, would you reconsider the direction of your vote? Poc o² 15:21, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Gra phi um 21:19, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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