Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Val Montanaia.jpg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

File:Val Montanaia.jpg

[edit]

Voting period ends on 24 Nov 2024 at 08:07:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Montanaia Valley in the Parco naturale delle Dolomiti Friulane
  •  Comment Just a nerdy note regarding the resolution: Some camera sensors deliver some more pixels than officially supported by the manufacturer. These extra pixels at the margins of the sensor are cut off by the cameras when creating a JPEG image, but they are saved into the raw image files; normally we still do not seem them because most raw converters just cut them off, too, probably because some of these extra pixels are often faulty. If one opens a raw image file from the camera used here (α7R IV) with RawTherapee, some of the extra pixels are retained and we get an image of 9,560 × 6,368 pixels. This means that all pixels in this photo (9,557 × 6,336 pixels) could indeed come straight from a simple single shot. Of course the Exif data state that the photo was developed with “Adobe Photoshop 25.9 (Windows)”, i.e. probably with Adobe Camera RAW (ACR), and ACR cuts the raw images from the α7R IV always to the nominal 9504 × 6336 pixels. But it is possible that the raw image was first developed with another raw converter (like RawTherapee) and only then edited with Photoshop … That’s the theory. Of course it seems more likely that the photographer made some kind of projection/perspective correction and streched the image slightly during that process; this would also explain the extra pixels and the image would still be authentic. – Aristeas (talk) 16:56, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The same applies also to other camera bodies, with a varying amount of extra pixels. Checking e.g. a CR2 file from the Canon EOS 5D IV, RawTherapee shows me 6732 × 4492 pixels – a little bit more than the official 6720 × 4480 pixels. So if one ever finds oneself in the situation that “just a few pixels” are missing at a border to complete the composition, it’s worth to give it a try and to open the raw image with RawTherapee … ;–) End of digression, sorry. – Aristeas (talk) 11:57, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support--UltimoGrimm (talk) 12:32, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Question The nomination indicates the name Scosse as uploader, but according to the file page, the uploader is Civvì. And because this last version is significantly different from the original one, with heavy processing, lifted shadows and oversaturated colors, I wonder if these modifications have been approved by the photographer. This message suggests that Scosse is not at the initiative of the FP nomination -- Basile Morin (talk) 14:13, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose per Basile Morin, and also wonder where the high resolution version of the image came from. If it was not uploaded by or with the consent of the original photographer then this is a copyright violation - if the photographer has chosen only to release the 6megapixel version then we don't have the right to upload a larger version that wasn't explicitly released under a Creative Commons license over the top Cmao20 (talk) 15:24, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi all, during the first candidature as QI the original version of the picture was considered too small so I asked the author if they were willing to upload a larger version of the picture, instead of uploading it they sent it me via email and I uploaded it. Maybe I should forward this email exchange to VRTS? --Civvì (talk) 15:38, 15 November 2024 (UTC) Update, I just forwarded the emails to VRTS. --Civvì (talk) 15:49, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support very well --Msb (talk) 21:27, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Thanks for the clarification about the image source. The lens flares and dust spot are still a problem in my view, but more importantly, which person did manage the post-treatment here, Scosse or Civvì? Scosse could have sent the same image in larger size as requested, and Civvì handled the processing before uploading it? In any case the correct name of the uploader should be updated on this nomination -- Basile Morin (talk) 22:37, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The author uploaded a new version with reduced flares. --Civvì (talk) 17:34, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment Thanks for the notification and attempt to improve, but sorry to say the correction is not well handled in my opinion. First, the dust spot and lens flares are still there (I will add image notes to specify the exact locations), then the dark spot added to reduce the white spot in the center creates artificial shadows on the rocks. Moreover, in this last version, the contrasts have been reduced, or the clarity increased, compared to the original, it's really blueish in the background and at the top of the foreground -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:35, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Val_Montanaia.jpg&oldid=959923060"