Wikimedia Commons

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Vidigal, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.jpg

< Commons:Featured picture candidates
edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jul 2024 at 08:38:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

 
  • Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Settlements#Brazil
  •   Info created and uploaded by Wilfredor, nominated by me. RodRabelo7 (talk) 08:38, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support -- RodRabelo7 (talk) 08:38, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Oppose Quality problem. F/2.8 = Limited depth of field. Out of focus foreground and background. ISO 5,000 = poor level of detail. Very high level of noise in the dark areas. Blown highlights on the beach. Also overprocessed (the whites are gray) -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:52, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support Thank you, RodRabelo7, for this nomination. I reconstructed the image from RAW using NX Studio, applying a vignetting fix. I used Topaz Denoise for noise reduction. The ISO was set to 1600 due to the lighting conditions. I didn't use a tripod to avoid drawing attention in a favela. The aperture was set to 2.8 because the subject was far away, and at such distances, a larger aperture isn't necessary. It’s normal because it is a night photo for some areas to appear very bright while others are darker. --Wilfredor (talk) 23:53, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Oppose I dont see DoF problems, but 2.8 means very unsharp on edges. Bigest problem is very strong CA, i think hours could be spent here to solve it, after it highligthed boards etc. Tripod would solve, but you didnt try it. Alternative has same problems. What is blown cant get back. --Mile (talk) 07:46, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't use a tripod because it is a dangerous place to have such an expensive camera, I couldn't draw attention to myself so I had some problems in that place Wilfredor (talk) 12:42, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Comment I read that before, but i dont see how should this help to change my vote. You would have CA in any case, means a lot of work to solve it. I did like the photo in thumb, but when opened in 100 % not so much. --Mile (talk) 14:25, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alt version

edit

 

  •   Info Another shoot in low level --Wilfredor (talk) 01:32, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Oppose I dont see DoF problems, but 2.8 means very unsharp on edges. Bigest problem is very strong CA, i think hours could be spent here to solve it, after it highligthed boards etc. Tripod would solve, but you didnt try it. Alternative has same problems. What is blown cant get back. --Mile (talk) 07:46, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      chromatic aberration is gone Wilfredor (talk) 18:59, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Comment Its is, i wish you could do that with first one, or to try here midtones,shadows to incerase EV. 1st is too brigth, this one is a bit underexposed. --Mile (talk) 19:10, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Oppose Level of blur of the background. Yes, DoF is a real problem, not only on edges, also at the distance. Low level of detail due to high ISO: 2500 here or 5000 / 1600 in the previous version(s), it is far too excessive when you need to lift the shadows in post-process. Shooting at dark night without tripod is hard (more than blue hour). The picture is okay to document the place, but technically not one of the finest. Empirical solutions when you don't have a tripod: 1) use a simple (and more discreet) monopod, which generally allows you to reach one full second quite easily, 2) use a wall, or any edge of surrounding structure, then stabilize the camera with stones, 3) walk with a friend who masters martial arts :-) or with good eyes, capable of monitoring, 4) Possible sometimes to manually take multiple shots at different focus points, then carefully assembly them at home, 5) Go at blue hour, when there is still more light. It will also bring an appealing sky, while reducing the highlights -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:18, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And it seems tilted to the right. ★ 03:03, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What bothers me more, is "the excessive noise reduction" (far more important than here for comparison), destroying the textures and details, in addition to the low DoF. When you zoom in, many areas appear almost solid color, like the sky, the mountains, and the transitions sometimes reveal artifacts -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:43, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /-- Radomianin (talk) 13:07, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Vidigal,_Rio_de_Janeiro,_Brazil.jpg&oldid=905026493"