Wikimedia Commons

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Miners shower, Rammelsberg Mining Museum, Harz, Germany, 2015-05-18-.jpg

< Commons:Featured picture candidates

File:Miners shower, Rammelsberg Mining Museum, Harz, Germany, 2015-05-18-.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 May 2015 at 20:42:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

 
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
  •   Info The Rammelsberg mining museum in Lower Saxony, Germany is a UNESCO World Heritage Site. Here is shown the miners' shower room. Created, uploaded and nominated by Slaunger. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:42, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support -- Slaunger (talk) 20:42, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support As beautiful and well-done in its own way as David's churches. Daniel Case (talk) 00:41, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support Ordinary can be beautiful. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:11, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support --Code (talk) 05:07, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support per King once again --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:33, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support yet an other symmetrical image but with a different motive than the churches, the ceilings and the trainstations! --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 06:09, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Question Well done but sides still leaning out IMHO, should be easily fixable --Kreuzschnabel 07:37, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Oppose Good quality, but no wow. Sorry. Yann (talk) 08:14, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support I partly agree with Yann, it's not the most exciting interior, but the picture is as good as it gets. --Kadellar (talk) 12:20, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support --Tremonist (talk) 14:52, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Oppose Per Yann --Uoaei1 (talk) 17:02, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support Another example of "So ugly, but catches your view for some unknown reason". -- Pofka (talk) 18:22, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support -- Lauro Sirgadocontribs 18:29, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support Excellent. Professional-quality photography of an important aspect of history. -- Colin (talk) 22:21, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support --Ralf Roleček 22:54, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support - Excellent (and different). --Pugilist (talk) 22:55, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 05:22, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 10:19, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support -- Christian Ferrer 04:38, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support Nice mood. I am not certain but that may be posterization. --Laitche (talk) 18:29, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    •   Comment Thanks for your observation, Laitche. Again I am impressed by your careful review and scrutiny. I believe you are correct that there is a little posterization in that dark corner. The photo is an HDR tone-mapped photo from three exposures 2 EV apart. That corner was very dark and I guess that despite the HDR and due to the limited dynamic range of my sensor, the posterization there has appeared due to a quite dramatic lift of shadows in Lightroom. I have tried to spend 20 mins again now fiddling around with a radial filter over that patch in Lightroom to try and make it better. It has not been a success, so I am not uploading a new version. I am afraid there is just not much that I can do about it. If I do not lift the shadows as much I feel it compromises the overall impression of the photo too much. In my opinion this small area of sub-optimal quality has negligable impact on the image when seen in its entirety. It is a question of making a reasonable tradeoff. My camera only allows three bracketed exposures and they cannot be separated more than 2 EV apart. I guess that I could have been even more careful and taken two sets of bracketed exposures to get six exposures 2 EV apart and get a larger dynamic range (Diliff normally uses five exposures in his church interiors, which is natively supported with his camera). But even then, my longest exposure was 13 s here and my camera allows only up to 30 s, so there is not much more I could have done to get the light out of that corner unless I had opened the aperture up from f/11, but then I would have lost DOF. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:42, 21 May 2015 (UTC) [reply]
      • Thanks for your comment again! It seems I have to be honest, I am guessing overall this HDR image is just a little bit poterized. Please look at the windows very carefully, just my opinion :) --Laitche (talk) 21:48, 21 May 2015 (UTC) [reply]
      • If your longest exposure was 13 seconds then you could have easily doubled the luminosity of the shadows.... Or simply bumped up your ISO a bit. The thing that many people forget (or don't understand) is that you can actually use higher ISOs with HDR tone mapping, as long as your darkest exposures in the bracket are exposed properly for the shadows. ISO 500-800 on most cameras will actually look okay as long as there are no dark areas in the image (the detail in the brightest 1/3 of the histogram will have very little noise at all). So you could have easily gone to ISO 400 without too many problems with noise IMO. ISO 100 is great for single exposures but unnecessary for HDR work. Diliff (talk) 00:58, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks, Laitche and Diliff for your further observations. You are correct, Diliff about the posterization on the red soap tray as well. You are also correct, that I could have done better and used the equipment at hand more optimally by taking a 30 s exposure as well to get as much as possible out of the shadows. My technique is still good, I think, but improvable. Regarding the ISO, I should try that, although I do not share you optimism about how high I can go. I may go to ISO 200, but I really think my sensor is so noisy that I should not go higher. Yesterday, I worked on this HDR panorama where the scenary has less dynamic range to capture than in this interior. Here, I did not have to boost the shadows and dampen the highligts nearly as much in Lightroom, but still, I had to yank up the luminosity NR quite a bit to avoid too much noise in the sky at ISO 100 even after masking out sharpening in the sky. Well, but I should test this systematically. -- Slaunger (talk) 16:10, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • Test my theory out then. :-) Take a photo that is overexposed at ISO 640 or ISO 800. Expose it so that the deep shadows of the scene are very bright, too bright to appear 'normal' but not too bright that they are actually blown. Then look at how much noise there is there. Then adjust the exposure in Lightroom so that the shadows look like normal shadows again. That's how much noise you'll have when you combine it into an HDR tone mapped image. Then compare it to a 'normal' image at ISO 100 with pushed shadows. The overexposed high ISO image will probably 'win' the noise competition against ISO 100. Normally this wouldn't be a useful method because exposing 'to the right' (of the histogram) would normally result in far too many blown details elsewhere in the scene, but it doesn't happen in an HDR image because you have other bracketed images to rescue the highlights from instead. The ISO level is almost arbitrary. What matters more is that you've 'exposed to the right' so that the details you want to capture in each bracket (highlights, mid tones and shadows) are in the upper end of the histogram. Diliff (talk) 16:36, 22 May 2015 (UTC) [reply]
  • Weak   Oppose Nice but not outstanding to me, the perspective is nice but I miss a special touch here Poco2 19:00, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support --Σπάρτακος (talk) 11:02, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 18 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 21:13, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Miners_shower,_Rammelsberg_Mining_Museum,_Harz,_Germany,_2015-05-18-.jpg&oldid=161882478"