Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Bath, Somerset Panorama - April 2011.jpg

File:Bath, Somerset Panorama - April 2011.jpg
Voting period ends on 22 Jul 2014  at 22:06:46 (UTC)
 * Reason:It's a good view of an very easy on the eye city, Bath, England. There's plenty of detail and sharpness.
 * Articles in which this image appears:Bath, Somerset and List of cities in the United Kingdom
 * FP category for this image:Featured pictures/Places/Urban
 * Creator:User:Diliff


 * Support as nominator – &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  22:06, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Support - I'll be honest and say that the framing of the city between two trees/bushes almost threw me off this (the conjunction of the plants and the curved rail line gave me the impression of a wide-angle lens), but after seeing the full resolution version, I am quite pleased with what we have. Shame about the cut-off church at the bottom, but it appears that you could not have gotten the whole building in-frame because of the plant growth. (Unrelated note: the 100mm 2.8/f lens makes for some pretty nice panoramas, doesn't it? I've found the same for me too) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:17, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the 100mm f/2.8 macro lens is very sharp. Most decent quality prime lenses will easily outperform even the most expensive zoom lenses though. As for the framing, I did consider cropping it a little tighter on the left side (and may still do so if people think it's better) but to really eliminate the bushes, it would need to be much tighter still and you'd lose too much of the city. It's not possible to get a better view from this hill without a really big ladder or a helicopter. :-) &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  16:16, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment It's a nice view, but it looks a bit washed out and bright. I'd do something on the upper part with a gradient filter to make up for the harsh light. I just played with it at home and it renders quite fine IMO, but in any way, it's better you do it from raw material. As a side note, doing so revealed some strange seams which I attribute to blending process. Inconsistencies between exposures perhaps ? - Blieusong (talk) 16:57, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * If I recall correctly, Lightroom's adjustment brush/gradient includes the Clarity control, which has a strange ability to cut through haze. It might be selectively applied to bring out the weaker areas without overdoing the stronger ones. -- Colin°Talk 11:48, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * True. I'll give it a go. I knew already that there was a bit of haze (if you look at the version history, you'll see this version is already an improvement!). I'm loathe to go back to the original raw files as it was taken with my old 5D Mk i and it didn't have an ultrasonic dust shaker on the sensor and it was very prone to collecting spots... each of the 21 segments has about 40 dust spots. Argh! Oh well, I'll go back and give it one more processing run and see if I can improve on the haze and washed out look. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  12:00, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * For the curious... :-) Here's an example frame, enhanced for detail. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  12:04, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * That is absolutely horrifying. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:44, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. OK, as per above feedback, I've reprocessed the image to achieve less haze and a bit more contrast. I've also cropped the left side to remove the trees, and slightly on the right too. I actually prefer this framing now, although it is a little tighter. Crisco, I've also managed to recover a bit more of the church as a result. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  12:32, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Support Lots of detail and high EV. Reminds me of my own trip to Bath years ago, when I took lots of photos and then discovered the film wasn't winding on properly in the camera. -- Colin°Talk 07:22, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Support I'd have increased the contrast even further on the top part, but I think it's fine. I believe I still see seams (I sometimes have same issue) Moving ur head away from screen might help to see. If not, let me know and I'll go to the ophthalmologist. - Blieusong (talk) 22:29, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I think you're right, I can see it's slightly darker in the top left corner (maybe the sun went behind the clouds during that frame), but they're very difficult to eliminate completely, and they only seem visible in the thumbnail. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  12:44, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Support Lovely, though it might be a smidgen saturated. Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:15, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that's possibly due to the boosting of contrast, I didn't adjust the saturation at all. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  12:44, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I've found that contrast adjustments tend to up apparent saturation. It's because, in RGB colour space, stretching things along a dark-light axis also stretches out the differences between the R, G, and B channels For example, R:30, G:37, B,52 ([30,37,52] if the colours are stretched so that 0,0,0], [127,127,127 is stretched to 0,0,0], [255,255,255 will become [60,74,104]. Saturation is roughly equivalent to the differences between R, G, and B, so that's a much more saturated colour. Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:07, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The adjustment controls in Lightroom and Camera Raw aren't simply altering the RGB values. I recommend "The Digital Negative" by Jeff Schewe for details (the book is mainly aimed at those using Adobe raw software). Lightroom manipulates all images in a 32-bit floating-point HDR space (vs 8-bit integer of JPG or 12-14 bit raw), which is why it natively supports the 32-bit HDR output of Photoshop's "Merge to HDR". The "Basic Panel" sliders are tone-mapping controls rather than simple levels controls, and their behaviour is designed to produce pleasing results (esp at extremes) rather than linear mathematical adjustment. Schewe says "Beware that in Lightroom and Camera Raw, increasing the contrast does increase the saturation of the image, while reducing contrast reduces saturation... Why is saturation connected to contrast? It really goes back to analog film. Thomas Knoll felt that altering contrast should alter saturation because that's the expected result when pushing or pulling film developmnet. It would be argued that it's not needed in digital, but then you would have to argue with Thomas... Personally, I don't have a problem with saturation changing with contrast changes." -- Colin°Talk 07:01, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

--Armbrust The Homunculus 22:07, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Added it to Places/Panorama. Armbrust The Homunculus 22:07, 22 July 2014 (UTC)