Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Front de Seine as seen from Pont Mirabeau 140412 1.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Apr 2014 at 12:00:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info created by DXR - uploaded by DXR - nominated by Paris 16
Support -- Paris 16 (talk) 12:00, 13 April 2014 (UTC)- Support Oops, that's wow indeed. --A.Savin 12:45, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
- Support Yann (talk) 13:12, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Oppose Colours look artificial. --PierreSelim (talk) 13:23, 13 April 2014 (UTC)- Support Thanks a lot to Paris 16 for the nomination! I agree that the colors were somewhat off, I adjusted the purple tint and reduced overall saturation slightly. Apart from that, I do not consider the colors artificial (obviously, the scene is a bit brighter than reality to better illustrate the scene, but I think I have the freedom to do that). From previous comments, I assume that Pierre might still disagree, but that's fine for me. --DXR (talk) 14:40, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
- Support --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 15:07, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 15:26, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose with Pierre Selim. I'm sorry for the following DR, but too many of these buildings are protected by copyright. There is no Freedom of Panorama in France. --Jebulon (talk) 22:50, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
- no problem with copyright here, no prolems with colours, very nice view, good technical accomplishment, but I am not happy with some strong overexposed parts, especially the area of the Statue of Liberty and surrounding. The strong flashlight at top of the Eiffel Tower and some not very important illuminated advertising I`m willing to excuse. But the mentioned area is eye-catching and should be reprocessesed IMO. --Wladyslaw (talk) 17:42, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
- Wladyslaw, I agree with you that it is not ideal, but you should keep in mind that bridge is extremely bright while the buildings are only illuminated by ambient light. I have already tried all what can be done with normal raw files and I think the result is borderline but just acceptable, although I understand other opinions here. In principle, HDRs could solve that, but that will probably cause a massive mess with the water, especially when stiched. Perhaps this conflict could be avoided by shooting earlier (I will certainly do this in the future), this was not possible on that day since a cruise ship was turning in the river, pretty much destroying the scene. --DXR (talk) 20:40, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
- Can you try partial HDR only in this mentioned areas? I know it's much work. I agree with you that HDR will destroy the water, this is here definitivly a highlight. So I thought about partial work. -- -donald- (talk) 07:41, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
- Unfortunately I do not have the exact frame in different exposures, so HDR is not really an option here. The only possiblity would be cloning these areas from a slightly different frame. This would certainly take hours if done very well on my desktop with a fast processor and a good mouse, but unfortunately I cannot access this PC until the end of May since it is at my home in Germany. I have tried it on my slightly old laptop but the results are just not good enough in gimp since everything is just lagging and precise operations are very difficult when dealing with such large files. --DXR (talk) 12:05, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
- Yes of course, I thought about new pictures. -- -donald- (talk) 18:52, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
- I will take more photos, but not sure whether they will make their way to commons given the issues with FoP. If they come out well, I'll probably upload them at the Wikipedias that are less restrictive... --DXR (talk) 21:34, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
- Yes of course, I thought about new pictures. -- -donald- (talk) 18:52, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
- Unfortunately I do not have the exact frame in different exposures, so HDR is not really an option here. The only possiblity would be cloning these areas from a slightly different frame. This would certainly take hours if done very well on my desktop with a fast processor and a good mouse, but unfortunately I cannot access this PC until the end of May since it is at my home in Germany. I have tried it on my slightly old laptop but the results are just not good enough in gimp since everything is just lagging and precise operations are very difficult when dealing with such large files. --DXR (talk) 12:05, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
- Can you try partial HDR only in this mentioned areas? I know it's much work. I agree with you that HDR will destroy the water, this is here definitivly a highlight. So I thought about partial work. -- -donald- (talk) 07:41, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
- Wladyslaw, I agree with you that it is not ideal, but you should keep in mind that bridge is extremely bright while the buildings are only illuminated by ambient light. I have already tried all what can be done with normal raw files and I think the result is borderline but just acceptable, although I understand other opinions here. In principle, HDRs could solve that, but that will probably cause a massive mess with the water, especially when stiched. Perhaps this conflict could be avoided by shooting earlier (I will certainly do this in the future), this was not possible on that day since a cruise ship was turning in the river, pretty much destroying the scene. --DXR (talk) 20:40, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
- Support -- -donald- (talk) 18:52, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
- Support Copyright concerns alleviated by cityscape, making everything de minimis. Otherwise excellent. Daniel Case (talk) 22:12, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
- Support --Cayambe (talk) 19:24, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
- Support Michael Barera (talk) 22:11, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
- Support Poco2 09:25, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
- It would appear that it will be kept : Support. --JLPC (talk) 12:11, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 12 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 08:48, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Panoramas
