Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Viborg by night 2014-11-04 exposure fused.jpg

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

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Nov 2014 at 21:28:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Viborg by night
  •  Info The southern part of Viborg, Denmark as seen from the east across Søndersø (Southern lake) by night. Viborg is one of the oldest cities in Denmark, with Viking settlements dating back to the late 8th century. Some prominent buildings are mentioned in the annotations on the file page. Created, uploaded and nominated by Slaunger -- Slaunger (talk) 21:28, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- Slaunger (talk) 21:28, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support - Very good. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:10, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Hubertl (talk) 04:21, 12 November 2014 (UTC) Excellent work![reply]
    • I just want to give my very personal opinion about pictures like those: I am always impressed to see, how much work it is, to make really good pictures. It simply requires a deeper understanding not only in dealing with the technical side, but also in the understanding of how the two will play together. Light and technology. I want to express, that good photos are only very rarely randomly taken - mostly it is more than just a shot. Naturally, it includes intuition in the question of motive selection. But if you are able to master the technical side - like this and in most cases too - then you will get the head free for that, what the world can offer. BTW, when rotating this image 90 degrees to the right, I see a perfect design for a futuristic, green skyscraper. But in this case, it is bad cropped at the top ;-) --Hubertl (talk) 09:17, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for that comment Hubertl, it made my day . I am techically very happy about this photo as it is the first time after many failed attempts that I have managed to get a succesfull multiple exposure panorama, which spans a large dynamic range from the almost completely dark sky to the strong point light sources from street lamps. It is also my first serious attempt with my new prime lens, a Canon 40mm f/2.8 STM (a birthday present, thank you, wife). All photos were taken at the maximum aperture and up to the maximum exposure time of 30 s, and I am happy that even at this large aperture the image quality is till very good with no noticeable CA. One of the lessons I have learned is to keep my not-so-rugged tripod with less long legs at a lower kneeling height, to make it more rugged, make sure it is not very windy and tighten the grip very tight to avoid shutter snap. And of course use a timer to avoid vibrations from physical manipulation (I do not have a remote control). And thanks for the futuristic sky scraper observation, LOL, I had not seen that, but you are right! I can, by the way provide a wider crop as I have much more to the left, it just got a little boring and made the aspect ratio too extreme if I included it. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:31, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Beautiful...but there isn't a little too of purple? --LivioAndronico talk 16:50, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Livioandronico: Thanks for your observation - you are right that it is quite purple. I have used a "Canon Flourescent" whitebalance of 4050 K because the lamps are the main light source. I do not know exactly what the origin of the slight blue/purple color in the sky is. Maybe city light, maybe a little reminescent "twilight" (we are at 9:30 pm). To the eye it looked very black and it was only in the 30s shutter time, f/2.8 exposures that this dark purple color casted sky was visible. It did not come out as a result of the exposure fusion (which does not mingle with the colors, unlike HDR tonemapping, which I also tried, but which gave artificial looking results)-- Slaunger (talk) 20:05, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- Christian Ferrer Talk / Im. / Fav. 17:29, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support If for Christian is ok is ok for me too. Anyway very good result and WOW! --LivioAndronico talk 20:24, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment After LivioAndronico comment, I tried with lightroom to increase the vibrance, for to look a the tint, and it's true that the sky, and it's reflection are very purple. On my PC I solved the issue by putting the purple color tint on the blue side, the result is more neutral sky. The image can also maybe benefit from a little increase of the contrast, clarity and vibrance IMO. It's a fine and pleasant image. -- Christian Ferrer Talk / Im. / Fav. 06:14, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Christian Ferrer: Thanks a lot for trying out tweaking the image. I could do the same manipulations. However, I feel reluctant to get rid of the purple colors, as I see it in the developed raws at the largest exposure and it appears to be there for real. My initial edit had more "impact", by a more agrressive use of clarity and vibrance as proposed, but for me (and especially my wife, who critized it for being 'unrealistic') it just did not represent well enough "how it is". I kindda think it looks cool with the dark purple sky, so I think I will keep it as is, but of course respect if other reviewers find it is not acceptable. -- Slaunger (talk) 17:38, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Grass bottom left ... but OK. --XRay talk 17:33, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Expected more sharpness. Not enough wow for me --Muhammad (talk) 19:12, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • If not wow, try it with wuff ;-) Objects in a distance between 1.4 km and 500 m are always a challenge. --Hubertl (talk) 19:43, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hubertl: Hmmm... actually the differing distance is not a challenge if there is good line of sight as is the case here. With a subject distance at 500m, and even with the large f/2.8 aperture the DOF is very high and extends from 30m - ∞ (the hyperfocal distance is at 30 m) for the given focal length and camera according to an online DOF calculator. Muhammad Mahdi Karim actually has a point that the resolution is not as large as one could have expected for stitch from an 18 Mpixel camera. This is due to the fixed 40mm focal length of the prime lens. It has a somewhat wide vertical fields of view, which is larger than optimal for the scenary at this viewing distance. Thus, quite a lot of sky and foreground lake and grass has been cropped out in the end result. A 60 mm prime lens would have been more optimal for the field of view of the scenary, I just happen to only have a 40mm prime lens. So, I can certainly follow the observation of Muhammad, whom I highly respect as a photographer (it is more than seven years ago I had really useful input to him, you remember Muhammad ;-) ), I just personally think that the end product has a more than sufficient resolution for FP. -- Slaunger (talk) 16:58, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 12:06, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Kadellar (talk) 14:36, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Böhringer (talk) 14:46, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Schnobby (talk) 17:08, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- Christian Ferrer Talk / Im. / Fav. 12:39, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Panoramas
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Viborg_by_night_2014-11-04_exposure_fused.jpg&oldid=140134587"