Wikimedia Commons

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Regent Street 01.jpg

< Commons:Featured picture candidates

File:Regent Street 01.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Apr 2015 at 18:20:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

 
  •   Info created, uploaded and nominated by Benh (talk) 18:20, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support Before you assess, the road actually goes slightly downward from left to right, and I've checked this with this site. The London folks will probably confirm. It's also actually curved, though the projection amplifies the phenomenon. -- Benh (talk) 18:20, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support Very nicely executed. To cover such a huge field of view you have to introduce some extra geometrical distortions to capture it reasonably in a 2D projection. I think you have utilized very elegantly that the road curves already for this purpose. The projection amplifies the curvature of the road, but it gives you the benefit that locally in the image the proportions look farly OK everywhere. I am impressed by the DOF. The pavement close to you is sharp, which is tough to achieve without parallax errors and I suppose you have used a quite small aperture, like f/13 or so? Unfortunately, this interesting technical information, like exposure, ISO and number of images is not available from the EXIF or the file page. I would recommend filling in the {{Photo Information}} template as done, e.g., here to make this informtion available for the curious reader. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:02, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Slaunger, I try to focus on the hyperfocal point (hope it's the right name) to get as much sharp parts as possible. My exposure blending soft, enfuse strip away my EXIF data. I forgot to put them back with exiftool but as a compensation, I filled the data you asked for. Now you can tell I shot at f/8.0, which is the sweet spot for this lens but I probably could have stopped down a bit more. I had to downsample to keep the (extremely) stretched edges reasonably sharp, and as a side benefit, everything from the front sidewalk to the building is sharp. - Benh (talk) 20:26, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, I was five stops off in my guess, but then again I had not noticed you had downsampled  . Thanks for adding the information I asked for. It is very instructive. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:32, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the review. I too like the empty street here. Was hard to achieve ; I didn't expect London to be this crowded (it's a league ahead of Paris for sure) so I had to be very patient, even at 7:30am. I certainly will check back the WB, you know the place more than I do, so it's good to have this kind of feedback. For the HDR issue, you are right. I only used two exposures, as the bright one was mostly white and I was afraid it affects the other area in an unpleasant way. I'll try to blend the three exposures also, just to check. - Benh (talk) 11:35, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support --Laitche (talk) 11:09, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support --Mile (talk) 11:53, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support --Tremonist (talk) 13:26, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support Very good --Rjcastillo (talk) 19:46, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support -- KTC (talk) 23:42, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support Perhaps contrast boosted a little too much. -- Colin (talk) 23:49, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support -- Christian Ferrer 07:21, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Comment @Diliff: and @Colin: , I tried a quick (miss time) reprocessing to fix the issues you raise: here. This time, I used the three exposures, so I was able to pull out more detail from the shadow parts, without noise tradeoff (which I think would have been OK without the bright exposure anyways). I also tried to address the WB issue, which was more a saturation/vibrance one I think. Colin, for some reason (probably that my +3EV exposure is mainly white here), the output from my exposures blending is very washed out. It's a reason I have to go heavy on the contrast. Personally not very satisfied, but waiting for your feedbacks before tweaking it again and possibly uploading a new version. I can also go back at my 2 exposures version and tweak that one instead. @Slaunger: , this time, I added the EXIF back with exiftool. - Benh (talk) 08:34, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • If I understand from previous conversations with you, you don't use Lightroom? I think you'd have much better results from processing a 32bit HDR file in Lightroom than through exposure blending. Also, if your outputted blended image is lacking contrast, perhaps you need to adjust the tone curves rather than just bump the contrast in a linear manner. That way, you have more control over contrast adjustments and you don't darken the shadows too much in the process. I prefer the processing of the dropbox version. I think the highlights are slightly overexposed though, but shadow detail is much better. It could still probably be improved further with processing in Lightroom but if this isn't an option, I'd be happy to support the updated image. Diliff (talk) 12:22, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    •   Comment I prefer the version you have here. I can warmly recommend the proposal by Diliff to make a 32 bit HDR file in stitching SW (such as PTGui) and then use lightroom for the tone mapping. It gives you many more options for controlling the exposure and colours accurately. It is like working with a "superraw". -- Slaunger (talk) 08:23, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Diliff and Slaunger Have tried. But 1. it's ressource demanding and I need to upgrade my memory or HD, and 2. the result doesn't please me. I like the fact enfuse gives you the choice with which parameter has more weight in the blending process. But it's also probably that I don't know how to use Photoshop's Fusion HDR Pro. - Benh (talk) 06:56, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • OK great thing I shall have done years ago : reading the manual. Will try to use enfuse with 32 bits depth tonight. BTW, if anyone has a HDR workflow recommendation, I'm curious to compare. - Benh (talk) 07:26, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • Lightroom gives you so much more control though. You treat the 32 bit file exactly like you would process a RAW file, except that instead of a standard RAW file's 12 stops of dynamic range (roughly), you get a theoretically unlimited number of stops to work with. From that file high dynamic range file, you can apply gradient filters, adjustment brushes, tone mapping (with a lot more control than enfuse). You can essentially treat different parts of the image completely differently, 'painting' tone mapping across an image as required. The only limiting factor from my experience is that the overall tone mapping 'tonality' is a bit too micro-contrasty, as I've mentioned before. Apart from that one disadvantage, which you can minimise by decreasing the clarity slider, it's by far the most powerful HDR workflow tool. I thought I'd explained the workflow before. I'm happy to explain in more detail but if you haven't got Lightroom or a PC capable of running it properly, it's all academic I suppose. Diliff (talk) 16:27, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support Balles2601 (talk) 22:21, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support A different but nice projection! It has WOW! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 01:35, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Oppose Sorry. My brain does not accept this kind of projection (nothing new...). The light is not excellent. Be happy: this pic will stay visible here a little more !--Jebulon (talk) 22:09, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Oppose "We are making us the world as it pleases us". Too distorted for me. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 06:25, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As you do too with your focus stacked images, dear Alchemist-hp. --Wladyslaw (talk) 11:04, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I knew the nom would get such opposes, but it's good to take risks sometimes. If you're familiar with FPC, you may have noticed I tried a lot of very wide angle non conventional view, without getting it right. But I disagree with the fact a FP shouldn't be that distorted. We have many FP with more distortion, only that we don't necessarily notice it because of the nature of the subjects, or people did it better than I did. I planned the shot and got that bending on purpose, the result looks harmonious in my view. I'm fine with the fact you don't like the result but I hope you separate this from a non desired distortion. And again, the street is already curved. The projection only did exaggerate that. - Benh (talk) 10:52, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "exaggerate". You wrote it ! 😉--Jebulon (talk) 11:11, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure I get ur point (sivouplé, donné moi explications) but yes "exaggerate", like in "the street is already curved, hence the bending", and not as in "the street was straight, and the projection bended it dramatically". - Benh (talk) 11:19, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've carefully chosen this view (best compromise imo). But given that it's on a non promotion trend, I may consider tweaking the projection and a tighter framing (because I actually thought like you too at first about the sides). Will think about it. - Benh (talk) 06:56, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*  Oppose Per Alchemist-hp e Jebulon --Σπάρτακος (talk) 12:11, 17 April 2015 (UTC) Striked --Cart (talk) 19:37, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 17 support, 8 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 18:25, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Regent_Street_01.jpg&oldid=323773171"