Wikimedia Commons

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Kreta - Potamon-Stausee2.jpg

< Commons:Featured picture candidates

File:Kreta - Potamon-Stausee2.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Sep 2016 at 18:30:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

 
Sorry, but I can't follow. The WB is correct IMO. It was warm weather (35°C) so we have warm sunlight, nearly without clouds on this day. And how can you know what type of grey the streets was? --Wladyslaw (talk) 20:20, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I can't know what kind of grey the road was only that to my eyes the colors looked better after an adjustment. But since many editors here are discouraging tweaks and alterations during a nomination, there is nothing that can be done about it unless more editors than me find the colors slightly off. Anyway, it was only a comment about how I saw the picture, not a vote of any kind. cart-Talk 20:31, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok Ikan, here it is. I had to crop and resize is slightly or the system would not accept it as a new file, but since it is only an example it doesn't matter. I took the WB not from the road itself but from the painted white lines on the road, right between the red an green CA on either side of the line. cart-Talk 21:00, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Comment I agree with the review of W.carter. I get the same results when using the white/grey stripes of the road as a WB reference. It also appears the tint is a bit off. I have sent a screen shot from Lightroom showing how it works by mail to Wladyslaw. Such a WB correction is better made when developing from raw. I could also upload a derivative with a slightly colder color temperature and a tweaked tint for reference, but it is not optimal using a jpg as source. The color space is marked as "sRGB" in the EXIF (good), but there is no embedded color profile. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:55, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree with others, and, yes, still no colour profile. The temperature of the air (35°C) has absolutely nothing to do with the "colour temperature" which perversely is more blue (which we associate with cold) with the very hot sun and more yellow (which we think of as warm) with the significantly less hot tungsten light bulb. -- Colin (talk) 21:00, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Slaunger Sorry, but I disagree. To take the white of the road stripes is a nice idea but not very helpful. The new tarred road was very bleached by sun and the asphalt street had yet strongly broken parts. The version of W.carter is too cold. --Wladyslaw (talk) 05:44, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's OK. Do fix the embedded color profile though; we have been through the issue of incomplete EXIF data regarding color profiles on numerous occasions. Until that is fixed I will   oppose conditionally. -- Slaunger (talk) 17:18, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Benh: shame on you: how could you support this candidate? --Wladyslaw (talk) 20:27, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because I liked the light on that one. I don't always check the color profile issue, so some of your pics can slip through sometimes. Thank god we have careful people like Colin. I'm really puzzled that you're recognising your pictures has issues, and you don't care fixing them. - Benh (talk) 07:27, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dear Benh: please keep polite and calm, even if this should be hard for you. I have tried several times to obey your's or other hints concerning this topic. The colour management information is in fact now part of the EXIF. I'm not an expert on EXIF-data and that here is missing s.th. else (even you didn't detected this at first) was outside my idea. I have tried to manage this "embadding problem" here. But Code has no idea how to handle this because I make exactly this what is written in the instruction. So, please have appreciation that my day has only 24 hours and my tasks in real life are fully enough so that I have no time any more to chase after this EXIF-stuff, in particular this is your own rule and not a official FPC rule. --Wladyslaw (talk) 18:24, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wladyslaw I don't see what's wrong with what I wrote (unlike someone else who think I should feel "ashamed"). If you have time to submit this many candidates, you have time to fix the issue. Otherwise, you can just Google, and many sources will explain this clearly. And even if you didn't have the time, I'm fairly certain I did provide you the fix myself. All you had to do is checking, and if you were OK, to overwrite the file (I didn't overwrite myself to be courteous. Edit : and also because the colours might have not been what you wanted to show). Maybe if you hadn't spent your valuable time to answer me, then you could have tried. You're welcome by the way. - Benh (talk) 21:36, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dear Behn: starting two candidates means 5 minutes of time. My investigations and experiments over all for this EXIF-stuff took me 2-3 hours in the last week: without any result. I've had it. Set your oppose-voting on my images altough it is not a FPC rules but don't expect any further action for this topic. --Wladyslaw (talk) 19:48, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 8 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /INeverCry 09:45, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places#Greece
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Kreta_-_Potamon-Stausee2.jpg&oldid=208048135"