File talk:A rainbow over Bridalveil Fall seen from Tunnel View in Yosemite NP.jpg
Latest comment: 15 years ago by Mbz1
- It is all but impossible to show detail of the trees, the fall and the mountain together from that location without doing panorama and maybe not even then. The subjects of the image are the rainbow, the fall and the mountains.It is anyway like to ask to show the details of the trees in that fp Image:Caldera de Taburiente La Palma.jpg or in that FP Image:Cascata caracol2.jpg and so on. Trees are just a frame. The image was taken at F10. Thanks.--Mbz1 23:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- Wow, I am kind of surprised that those are FP too. There has to be an explanation for why the images are so lacking in fine detail. Is it really high jpeg compression? What camera was it? What ISO? Mfield 23:39, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- There are quite a few other FP like these and all of them are great and valuabale images. I've used CANON XTI with tripod at large JPG and with no compression. ISO was 400. I do not think the sky is too noisy, but if somebody likes to work at the image to reduce the noise, please do.I'd like to point out once again that it is impossible to show the details of far away dark trees combined all together in the forest and not overexpose the rainbow at the same time. Thanks.--Mbz1 23:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- That simply isn't the case. I have plenty of crop sensor camera images from my old 300D and 20D bodies of similarly dynamic ranged scenes (even handheld with so so lenses) with far more fine detail than that. Is this a cropped image? What PP was done etc. There must be another explanation for the smeariness in the trees. Unless ISO 400 really is that bad on an XTI in which case 100 would have been the logical choice given the use of a tripod? Mfield 23:51, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- I do not think there's a use to talk about my image anymore, but here's the FP image from Wikipedia taken by famous Diliff and here's the panorama FP image from Wikipedia. So while I respect your opinion as a professional photographer I cannot agree with your oppose reasons. Thanks.--Mbz1 00:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- OK, I am not being personal, I am just trying to get to the bottom of why the problems I see have come about as I have an inquisitive nature and maybe the answer will be useful to you and others in future. No hard feelings. FWIW those last two images contain far more fine detail, much more what I would expect to see in a landscape FP. Mfield 00:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- Of course my samples from Wikipedia FP are very nice images with fine details, and IMO the trees at background in both of these images also suffer some lack of details, which is very understandable. BTW may I please ask you a question? When you said you had plenty of crop sensor camera images from your old 300D and 20D bodies of similarly dynamic ranged scenes (even handheld with so so lenses) with far more fine detail than mine you were talking about that image too Image:Hollywood bowl and sign.jpg? Thanks.--Mbz1 01:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- No, that's a terrible image from an IQ point of view, its just useful to WP which is why I uploaded it. I was in a hurry and shot it at F4, plus it was a super hazy day and that image had a lot of contrast correction to bring the background back. Mfield 01:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you that you did not get upset with me because of my question ;-) There's no hard feeling. IMO the nominated image is of a good quality, but the subject is more or less common (I mean the fall runs around 2 months per good year and rainbow is seen for about an hour some days of these two months). So it's absolutely fine with me, if you believe the image should be opposed. As I said I respect your opinion. Thanks.--Mbz1 01:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- Mfield, may I please ask to accept my apology. You were right all along. The quality of the image is very low. Thank you.--Mbz1 12:57, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
