Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Montserrat Panorama

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates

[edit] Montserrat Panorama

A multi-segment panoramic photo from the summit of St Jerome on Montserrat

Edit 3 by Diliff

Edit 1 by Fcb981
Edit 2 by Antilived

Reason: This is a interesting, high resolution panoramic image from the Summit of Saint Jerome (1236 metres / 4055 feet) on Montserrat, a mountain one hour north-west of Barcelona. It shows from left to right: the view to the valley floor below, the communications antennae, the topography of the mountain, and the steps on the approach to the summit.
Articles this image appears in: Montserrat (mountain)
Creator: Diliff
Nominator: Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs)

Support — Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Support- Wow. Jorcoga Yell! 12:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Support What else can I say but "another flawless panorama by Diliff"! --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 13:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Support Diliff, do you give any seminars near portland???? ;p -Fcb981 15:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Support (edit 3), even though I think the deepest shadows are a bit too inky... Some curve and /or level adjustment could easily fix that. --Janke | Talk 16:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with you. It didn't look that bad on my home monitor but the shadows do look a bit too deep on my work screen (which I place less faith in, but its hard to know for certain how things are going to look on various displays).. The shadows have already been somewhat lifted but it is quite difficult to get the perfect balance with such a contrasty scene (the far right was starting to face into the sun on a hazy day and was difficult to control the blowout of highlights in the sky). Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 16:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
  - Well, you could try using an "adjustment level", letting the adjustments affect only the lower part of the image. I did a (too) quick test, which I won't upload, but I used two layers of your image, one in which I drastically lifted the shadows, and then an adjustment layer to selectively affect the end result. In this way, I could get the shadow contrast lowered without affecting the sky or mid-tones at all. (You might try it - you can do a lot with layers, in fact, I've "saved" almost unsalvageable underexposed 35mm slides by making two scans with different settings (one scan for highlights, one for shadows), and combining them with layers...) --Janke | Talk 17:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
- Janke makes a good point. What I find works for preventing blown highlighs in the sky is to place a low power negative Omni off the image where you dont want to blow the highlights then adjust levels. I did that here: [1]. I didn't spend much time on it and it became a bit over exposed so if you want you can edit yours yourself and add as an alternate. If you like mine you can do that one too. -Fcb981 17:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Support. Even with the shadows, this is a stunning image. Trebor 17:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC) Support edit 3 as better. Trebor 01:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
~~Conditional support~~. The shadow issue. --Tewy 00:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
- Support edit 3, weak support original, as I can now see it won't become drastically better. --Tewy 00:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Support Uploaded another edit, improving shadow detail without affecting highlights (much). --antilived^{T | C | G} 07:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Support original per above, however, the two edits look very hazy and lack contrast. While the shadows are a bit "inky", I think too much is lost in the edits. --Cody.Pope 08:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
- Agree with that statement... If the shadows are too dark (and everyone is probably right on that), I will re-process the RAW files and re-stitch it. Increasing shadow detail from the JPG is not quite as effective. I'll have a go tonight and see what I can come up with. Hold off on the edits guys (both of them look pretty similar to my eyes). Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Support original - the edits lose the impact of the original, which is quite a stunning photo -137.222.10.67 14:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Support original only cut it out with the edits. Noclip 15:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment: these two edits went way too far - let's see what Diliff can do. Suggest we delete the other edits when his gets on-line... --Janke | Talk 17:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I struggled to vastly improve the shadow detail over the original as even the original raw files contained very little additional information in the shadows. However, with a lot of tweaking, I was able to come up with something in between the previous edits and the original. Its still not perfect and some may prefer the original (the tones are a bit different between versions as it was a complete re-process and re-stitch from scratch and the settings were not identical). I found it hard to create an edit that improved shadow detail significantly over the original without overcooking it and losing pleasing tones in the image. Edit 3 is my best attempt at a compromise. If I had the chance to reshoot, I would have increased the exposure slightly (I was worried about blowing highlights but instead lost shadow detail at the other end). Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 23:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Support Original Only. Very good as usual! --Fir0002 23:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

My vote is still for the original only --Fir0002 09:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Weak support original only. The edits are too washed out, and the original is good but the inky shadows are a bit much --⁪froth^T 23:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Support Original or Edit 3 - Diliff images are automatically FP. Also the original looks good, and the shadows are perfect. Although i see no problem with edit 3. edit 1,2 are way too much. --Arad 00:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment Are the original photos in RAW format? If they are you could conceivably do HDR tone-mapping and then generate the panorama. Noclip 04:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
- Yes they are but as per my comments above, the problem isn't that I can't get all the dynamic range from the RAW file into a JPG, the problem is that the RAW file simply didn't capture the information in the shadows at the time of shooting the scene. Even with RAW there are limits to what a camera can capture. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 07:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Support Original Incredible Panorama.... very encyclopedic. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 05:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Support original. Just let the shadows be dark... --Dschwen 09:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Support edit 3 Good work! You should take more pictures! :-) | AndonicO ^{Talk · Sign Here} 11:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Support original or edit 3, with preference for the original. --KFP (talk | contribs) 00:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Support I honestly do not have a preference, this is another one for the history books :) Arjun 03:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Support original. Another fantastic FP panorama. - Darwinek 15:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Support original I don't really like the shadows in the edits -Wutschwlllm 16:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment. There is no clear consensus yet on whether to promote the original or edit 3. --KFP (talk | contribs) 19:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
- To me, it seems like of those that support either, a sizable number of people support only the original, whereas a lot of those supporting edit 3 also supported either. Therefore I would lean towards the original as it had less implied opposition than edit 3 did. Just my thoughts. I'm ok with either. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 20:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
- I moved the nom to the "additional input" section because edit 3 was added after Cody.Pope, Noclip, Fir0002 and Froth voted "original only". I like the original more so I'll update my vote. --KFP (talk | contribs) 21:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Support original, just that little bit of contrast pushes me towards the original. Hope that helps to speed things along. --Cody.Pope 07:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)