Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bossee-2022-msu-3392-.jpg

File:Bossee-2022-msu-3392-.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Mar 2023 at 16:04:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Bossee-2022-msu-3392-.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bossee-2022-msu-3392-.jpg

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Germany#Schleswig-Holstein
•  Info created & uploaded by Matthias Süßen – nominated by Ivar (talk) 16:04, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
•  Support – Ivar (talk) 16:04, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
•  Support Pretty static and centered but hell of lighting and a nice reflection Poco a poco (talk) 17:39, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
•  Support -- IamMM (talk) 17:57, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
•  Support --LexKurochkin (talk) 18:16, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
•  Support Anyone who gets up that early... Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:49, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
•  Support --A.Savin 22:42, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
•  Support --SHB2000 (talk) 00:14, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
• Nice composition but  Oversaturated in my view. Same aspect as this one. The post-treatment has gone too far in my opinion -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:24, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

•  Oppose The color of the water through the gap of the wooden planks of the pontoon is much lighter than around. Also the lower right corner of the photograph is plain white -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:26, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

• I'm not sure it is. I did a check and the gaps look lighter because of the white halo around the planks. Bottom right resulted from tilt correction and should be sorted. The image possibly has a lot of post-processing though. Charlesjsharp (talk)

• Possibly a selective filter was applied in the sky + reflection (except in the portion located in center of the pontoon). I also find the intensity of the yellows & purples too garish -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:47, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

• The colors in this photo seem plausible to me; the ones in the photo you linked, less so. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:11, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

• One thing is certain: this image is heavily processed. One doesn't get this kind of shot directly from the camera, even if by luck the sky was breathtakingly exceptional. Now the question is how far? And was this post-treatment too far from reality? By experience at FPC, it's often a question of tolerance until which point the sliders are still acceptable according to the subject. While some of us consider they've been moved over the maximum , other people sometimes think "yes but the scenery is worth it" (example). In that case, the aspect is "Instagram-like" to me. Unrealistic. I'm not saying it's all fake, but saturated enough for me to miss the "wow" factor, and too far in my opinion for this picture to be sorted in a gallery called "Natural" -- Basile Morin (talk) 15:07, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

• Understood, but I supported the other photo you linked. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:02, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

• Well, you're perfectly entitled to follow your own tastes But personally in front of such images I feel "this is a special processing" rather than "this is a special landscape". -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:49, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

•  Support --Mister rf (talk) 07:13, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
•  Support --I second Ikan on the plausibility of the colors. I live in this part of Germany and we sometimes do have incredible lights with flamboyant colors.Dinkum (talk) 16:01, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
•  Comment Matthias, would you like to address the question of how much saturation you used in post-processing? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:05, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

   Comment Sorry. I'm on the road and (once again) don't have access to the file. As far as I remember, the image is an exposure bracketing of three images. I stitched them together in Lightroom and chose Landscape as profile. I did not work with masks at that time. AFAIK I did not increase the saturation. The sunrise was indeed spectacular. —Matthias Süßen (talk) 20:06, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

• Thank you, and enjoy your trip! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:51, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
• If there are 3 PICTURES stitched together, that would be useful to mention this in the file description, possibly with {{Retouched}} {{HDR image}}. After all, a HDR composition is a kind of photomontage.

We don't know from which image comes the public exif data, but the hidden exif data indicates there is at least 1 mask applied.

Shadows +95%, Highlights -83%, Luminance 87% and vibrance 20%. There are many more modifications, but that's enough to create an  artificial aspect in my opinion -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:49, 21 March 2023 (UTC) Basile Morin (talk) 22:36, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the template HDR -- Basile Morin (talk) 22:36, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

•  Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:52, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
•  Support --Yann (talk) 21:40, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
•  Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 06:26, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
•  Support -- Radomianin (talk) 07:39, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
•  Oppose I'm with Basile on this one. The slammed highlights, pulled shadows and punchy colours seem like a throwback to the early days of HDR. I'm sure the scene looked beautiful in person, but there's just not enough dynamic range on an 8-bit JPEG to do it justice --Julesvernex2 (talk) 21:07, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
•  Support Red seems to me to have been reduced during post-processing, which is why it looks unnatural. But it is still good.--Ermell (talk) 10:00, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
•  Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:50, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Basile. --Milseburg (talk) 18:29, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
•  Weak support It may have been heavily processed, per the EXIF data, but other than the foreground vegetation looking lighter than it normally does in such images (which, in this case, frankly leaves it looking like ... exactly what we'd see with our own eyes standing there) it's perfectly OK for me. It looks "artificial" only by the standards of what we usually get out of photographs. Daniel Case (talk) 19:59, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

• I’m not sure we would see vegetation as bright as the sky, Daniel. Our eyes can dynamically adapt to a scene and our brains can composite images, meaning we are able to perceive 20+ stops of light. On the other hand, an 8-bit JPEG can show only up to 10 stops, depending on the applied gamma curve. While I don’t think we should limit photography to what our eyes see, personally I don’t find this image aesthetically pleasing. —Julesvernex2 (talk) 07:44, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

•  Support --Princess Rosalina 🍵 452159 07:36, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
•  Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 11:46, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 01:18, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural/Germany#Schleswig-Holstein