Wikimedia Commons

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:LSG-00561.01 Rückersbacher Schlucht.jpg

< Commons:Featured picture candidates

File:LSG-00561.01 Rückersbacher Schlucht.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Aug 2021 at 21:04:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

 
  • Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Germany#Bavaria
  •   Info created by KaiBorgeest - uploaded by KaiBorgeest - nominated by KaiBorgeest -- KaiBorgeest (talk) 21:04, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support -- KaiBorgeest (talk) 21:04, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support Good quality for FPC. SHB2000 (talk) 08:17, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support -- -donald- (talk) 10:52, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Oppose Not too impressive as far as forest contre-jour images are concerned. The illuminated leaves are blown out, and overall the image is lacking in saturation and color. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 14:44, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Oppose It's a nice composition, but I agree with KoH that it's not quite an FP. Compare File:Bruderwald-Winter-PC030149.jpg, which also has the benefit of including two horses and riders walking away in the picture. Nothing is blown out and I find that it has a more satisfying composition, partly because it's framed by tall trees on both sides and the ground isn't a lot higher on one side than the other, relative to the scale. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:08, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Regretful oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 15:19, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Oppose per others. It’s really a nice mood and lighting, but the blown bright parts nail it for me. Maybe this can be redone from raw file at less contrast? Furthermore, I don’t like the focus being on the foreground, leaving most of the frame slightly out-of-focus. Either choose a real shallow DoF with a bokeh background, or take a sharp frame. --Kreuzschnabel 15:44, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Comment This is a out-of-camera JPEG file, right? Just as a hint: I would highly recommend to photograph such scenes always using the raw image format of your camera (in the case of a Canon camera, this means a CRW/CR2/CR3 file). In order to capture the extreme contrast and the deep/dark colours of such scenes, you need the full bit depth and information of the camera’s image sensor, you only get this with the raw image format. Of course shooting in raw requires also to learn how to develop the raw image files. That’s a big step, I know, and can take some time, but shooting and developing raw can really lift your photography to the next level. --Aristeas (talk) 07:32, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Aristeas, cheers for writing 'raw' and not 'RAW', hopefully you'll create a following :) Julesvernex2 (talk) 15:18, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • *flip* *flip* *flip* I was first! :D --Kreuzschnabel 17:08, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, certainly :–). I have to confess that I have written ‘RAW’ sometimes because often people misunderstand ‘raw image format’ and think it just means the original out-of-camera JPEG file. :–( As this misunderstanding shows, quite some people are not aware of the fact that the original out-of-camera JPEG file is not an original, but was generated by their camera from the raw image data. Please let us work together to spread, in a friendly and sympathetic manner, more knowledge about the importance of the raw image format and the advantages it provides to photographers. --Aristeas (talk) 06:40, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • I blame camera manuals for perpetuating both the misunderstanding that 'raw' is an acronym that should be capitalised - rather than an adjective that should not - and the notion that shooting and developing raw images is hard to do! To Aristeas great point on spreading the gospel of raw, I offer my own path to enlightenment to those considering the plunge: some five years ago, I switched my cameras to record both a JPEG and a raw file for each picture. When developing the latter, I would frequently take a peek at the former, to check how my editing compared to the camera's. Once I was confident that I could consistently develop a better image that the camera could, I started shooting raw only. Julesvernex2 (talk) 11:21, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 11:41, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Oppose per Ikan Kekek. --Fischer.H (talk) 16:10, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Oppose per Ikan. The light on a sunny day make really hard conditions for shooting in woodland. The contrast between dark and light is too much for the camera or JPG. Here unfortunately the light doesn't extend along the path, only a short distance. Per the image Ikan references, it is interesting that most images of paths on Commons have no people in them, and yet the opposite is true outside of Commons. I can understand why, but it does make it harder to connect. -- Colin (talk) 17:52, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--MZaplotnik(talk) 08:50, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:LSG-00561.01_Rückersbacher_Schlucht.jpg&oldid=586774516"