Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Lake Bondhus Norway 2862.jpg

Lake Bondhus Norway

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Nov 2011 at 20:07:58 (UTC)

Original – Lake Bondhus, glacier Bondhusbreen in the background, as a part of the Folgefonna Glacier

Reason: high technical standard, high resolution and a really great atmosphere
Articles in which this image appears: Bondhusbreen, Folgefonna National Park
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena/Others
Creator: Alchemist-hp

Support as nominator --Brackenheim (talk) 20:07, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support - EV could be higher. If we had an article on Lake Bondhus with this image, then I could support fully. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:41, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose agree with Crisco. Also, the foreground is out of focus on the right side, but that could be cropped. Pine^talk 03:59, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. Not much EV, and looks a bit HDRish. Kaldari (talk) 08:34, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It looks like this has been really attacked with a denoise/median filter... Is a less heavily processed version available? - Zephyris _Talk 13:21, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Here's another version. But this one doesn't show such a great atmosphere... --Brackenheim (talk) 14:55, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose The only place this image should be used is in the Photoshop article, and even then it woud be a bad example. This is not at all what the lake actually looks like and is terrible misrepresentation. JFitch (talk) 20:36, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Looks Photoshopped. Aequo (talk) 09:20, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What looks photoshopped to be specific? Colors may be tweeked, but other then that? Alchemist-hp is a regular contributor here... — raeky t 12:28, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It looks photoshopped, but it isn't. That's the reason why I really love this photo. (There was a similar "Photoshop-discussion" at de.wiki). Only Photomatix Pro was used to get this high quality. --Brackenheim (talk) 17:25, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. No, I'm pretty sure it's photoshopped too, but part of it could also be due to a neutral density filter. Examples: The reflections of the mountains seem lighter than the mountains themselves, the shadow under the boat seems weak, and it looks like there has been some really strong noise reduction applied as there is almost no texture in any of the scene - it seems very 'blobby'... Ðiliff «» (Talk) 17:23, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Dusty777 (talk) 21:20, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose pending an explanation of editing. The other version Brackenheim links appears to be an unedited version of the same photograph, no? Certainly that picture has more realistic-looking colors. This one is just plain weird to me--the foreground seems too warm compared to the background. Chick Bowen 22:19, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Even the original normal exposure would have gotten my support. Saffron Blaze (talk) 14:59, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

info the follow three images were the "original JPG's" for the nominated one: underexposed, normal exposed and overexposed. And yes I'm the author of all the images. I processed at first my three origin RAW CR2 files with DPP ver. 3.10.2.0 to 16 bit TIFF files. The three TIFF files were only processed with Photomatix 64bit HDR ver. 4.1.3 software. The nominated image is the result. Why a HDR image? It is simple: for more dynamic because the camera was overexerted. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:53, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The range has been extended way too far, and not executed correctly. You've lost natural lighting, ended up with reflections that don't match objects, and color tones that are just simply wrong. When someone refer's to it being 'Photoshopped' they are refering to the fact that it has been heavily post processed, as this has. The fact that the software was something other than Adobe Photoshop is irrelevant. JFitch (talk) 01:14, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question Looking at all three of your pictures (Underexposed, Normal, Over), why is it that the clouds do not appear to move? I own a camera that you can adjust the shutter and F-stop and all that stuff, (I also live in an area where clouds and fog and stuff like the appearance in the pictures) and in the time it takes to change the settings on the camera, focus it, and take the picture, there is usually a small change or movement in the clouds. I take pictures like this often, and there is always a small change between pictures. Why is this change not appearing in your pictures? Dusty777 (talk) 01:50, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure what Alchemist would have done is exposure bracketing in which the camera takes three (or more) photos in a burst with varying exposure such as -2EV, 0EV and +2EV. It all happens in about one second, so there is usually no movement of clouds. There can be movement in foreground elements such as trees and grass blowing in the breeze though, or ripples in the water. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 10:12, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit uploaded. I tonamapped the three original photos using Photomatix Pro. The edit is a little bit more conservative, though it has some slight alignment errors. It may also need a contrast boost. However, the edit looks more realistic to me. Otto Jula (talk) 02:50, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that I messed up the thumbnail as I uploaded the edit as a new version. Maybe someone can fix this? Otto Jula (talk) 02:55, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Looks like a screenshot from a game from the Agatha Christie series. I am not sure whether it is photoshopped or not, but it doesn't look "real". --♫GoP♫_T ^C _N 13:00, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw the nomination of my photo. Thanks for the votings. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 19:19, 9 November 2011 (UTC) P.S: please visit simple this mystic place in Norway. I'm still amazing.[reply]