Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Foggy sunset with Brown Pelicans.jpg

File:Foggy sunset with Brown Pelicans.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Oct 2009 at 17:47:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Mbz1 - uploaded by Mbz1 - nominated by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 17:47, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 17:47, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aqwis (talk) 21:18, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice. I might have not had the sun quite as close to the edge though. --Relic38 (talk) 02:01, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Wonderful image, but those rocks at the bottom makes me wonder if the composition would not be better without them (or with more of them, if this is a cropped image). If other versions are not up to the task, I'm willing to support this image. --S23678 (talk) 08:49, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bad crop. —kallerna™ 10:40, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per kallerna, also dynamic range problems, although some might consider them to have artistic value. -- JovanCormac 11:08, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dynamic range? I wish I knew what it is.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:10, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dynamic range is the difference (Wikipedia says the ratio) between the strongest and weakest signal of a type, in this case: light. The candidate image (like any other image that shows the sun directly) has an extremely high dynamic range because the brightness of the sun's disc exceeds that of the rock by several orders of magnitude. With traditional photographic techniques it is (as I am sure you're aware) very difficult to photograph a scene with a high dynamic range without one part being overexposed (which is the case here with the sun's surroundings) or underexposed. It is precisely that what HDR (high dynamic range) imaging is for: To create a composite image of a HDR scene that is well-lit in all areas without being overexposed in any one of them. -- JovanCormac 15:20, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the explanation, Jovan. It is interesting that few mitues ago I found out that HDR does not do a good job with the waves.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:28, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@Kallerna, what crop you did not like so much that it was enough to oppose the image? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:20, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If there would be more stuff on bottom, I would reconsider my vote. —kallerna™ 19:40, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You wanted to see my feet? :) --Mbz1 (talk) 20:23, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely! :) —kallerna™ 20:33, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Korall (talk) 15:32, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative, featured edit

Support--Mbz1 (talk) 16:36, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Much better crop and EV. I'd support if that bright spot next to the bird is removed. As well, the picture is tilted clockwise (didn't saw it on the first ~~edit~~ version). --S23678 (talk) 02:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comment. What bright spot do you mean the sun? BTW it is not an edit. It is an absolutely different image.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:09, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't put a note on this version to point out the bright spot, but it's the bright thing right next to the biggest bird that looks like lens internal reflexion (or is this the moon... I don't know) on the top left. I realised it was not an edit after writting about it... but I forgot to correct that part of my first comment. --S23678 (talk) 04:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That bright spot is the sun, and even to earn your support I will not remove my favorite star

--Mbz1 (talk) 04:30, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~ I really do like the scene, but to have overexposed fog while the sun is correctly exposed doesn't just doesn't make sense in such a scene, and it's somewhat deceptive for FP, even if digital manipulations are written in the description. It would have been so much easier if it was only from lens internal reflexion...! --S23678 (talk) 00:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Digital manipulations have absolutely nothing, absolutely nothing, absolutely nothing to do with the sun and/or the fog. I have never touched the sun or/and the fog. Digital manipulations meant that I created panorama out of three images manually, and it is clearly specified in the description of the image.For example here is the original image File:Foggy sunset at Land's End.jpg that was never post processed at all. I've chosen that one because it is one of the best to illustrate what it really is. You see here that the sun is exposed just right, but look at the fog and even at the w:sun glitter! Their brightness compare to the "right" sun only shows that the density of the fog was different, and not "digital manipulations". To wish that it were not the Sun, but a lens reflection is very strange to say the least

. That oppose reason will get the first place in my collection of oppose reasons, and it is even better than get the nominated image promoted to FP status

--Mbz1 (talk) 01:20, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support I still can't understand how the sun can be less exposed than the fog through logic, really, but faced with the evidence of the other picture you showed, I can only discover my ignorance on this subject... --S23678 (talk) 18:39, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support I like both versions, and this one shows an interesting phenomenon of cloud/fog density. --Relic38 (talk) 01:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, also, Mbz1, my nick is "Aqwis" with a Q. ;) --Aqwis (talk) 08:03, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(I've changed your name in purpose after you opposed my possible picture of the year. It was my retaliation to you. ) I am sorry, I did. Please accept my apology --Mbz1 (talk) 12:35, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
:) --Aqwis (talk) 13:02, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Question Have you considered changing your name? :P Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 12:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, it was only me, who did.--Mbz1 (talk) 12:37, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 12:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 5 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Korall (talk) 15:32, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Daniel78 (talk) 14:40, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Natural phenomena

The chosen alternative is: File:Foggy_sunset_with_brown_pelicans_2.jpg