Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Fall in Yukon's Tombstone Territorial Park – Protected areas in Canada Q844692.jpg
File:Fall in Yukon's Tombstone Territorial Park – Protected areas in Canada Q844692.jpg, not featured
edit
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Mar 2020 at 17:56:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural/Canada#Yukon
Info A dramatic and moody landscape during autumn in Tombstone Territorial Park, Yukon, Canada. created by LaurieSchamber - uploaded by LaurieSchamber - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 17:56, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 17:56, 22 February 2020 (UTC)- Support Thank you for finding this hidden gem! Maybe technically not perfect (too dark? some noise?), but IMHO really great. --Aristeas (talk) 10:48, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks! Yes, it is a tiny bit noisy, the EXIF suggests ISO 900 was used so maybe the light was difficult. But it's not really more than a fine luminance noise even at full size. And I'd rather a bit of noise than too much NR leading to an undetailed image. Cmao20 (talk) 12:44, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
- Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 15:30, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Oppose Sorry, I don't mind the noise but it is just too heavily processed for me and that is confirmed when looking at the exif. (Such as clarity +78 and contrast +52. On a landscape...) --Cart (talk) 15:45, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
- Out of interest, Cart, how did you find those figures? I can't see them in the metadata on the image page. Are you using a different way to view more info in the EXIF? Cmao20 (talk) 15:21, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
- Cmao20 I use that page linked to in COM:FP#Colour profile, Jeffrey Friedl's Image Metadata Viewer. With that you can usually see many things done to a photo online. But do bear in mind that looking at editing numbers doesn't tell the whole story. Usually a photographer is trying to recreate a scene as (s)he saw it and remembered it, and many times that deviates from what the camera captured, such as that the human eye can "see" in HDR when the camera can't in one shot. Many photos here look very realistic even though the numbers in the metadata are all over the place, whereas some photos can look over-processed by just tiny adjustments. You need to be able to read the whole concept and the sheer numbers in the metadata is just one part/help. --Cart (talk) 15:26, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
- Interesting, will note that tool for future use. Cmao20 (talk) 15:30, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
- Support --Killarnee (T•R•P) 17:08, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose Amazing landscape but per Cart. --Podzemnik (talk) 05:35, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Comment - I appreciate a photographer showing darkness as actually dark, but I think the effect could be obtained while making it a little less dark than this. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:40, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
- Adding so much 'Clarity' to a photo adds a lot of artificial darkness, that is what that function does, it boosts both the darkest and brightest areas. Very good feature when you are photographing water or glass things (hence the name) but not something you add to a normal landscape photo unless you are going for artificial drama. --Cart (talk) 13:11, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
- Comment - I see. Well, User:LaurieSchamber, if you feel like returning to Commons to edit your file... -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:49, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose, now that I know the extra darkness is contrived. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:52, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination Can't help but agree with Cart that the image is probably overprocessed. Sorry for wasting your time, everyone who voted. I still like it artistically but I guess it's not really suitable for FP. Cmao20 (talk) 11:47, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cmao20 (talk) 11:47, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
