Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Strickland Falls.jpg

Strickland Falls

 * Reason:Good Quality, provides context for the Hobart Rivulet on Mount Wellington before it goes into Hobart (contrast other image in the article)
 * Articles this image appears in:Hobart Rivulet, Neutral density filter
 * Creator:Noodle snacks

Weak Oppose Very beautiful image but I think it is over exposed in some areas whilst being a little dark in others. Also could be a bit clearer as well. Could this image have been made wider with more height I would have been inclined to vote in favor, also were you using a stand for this?. I know from previous experience that photos in this type of terrain can be very difficult to take. .        Adam (talk) 08:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC) More evaluation of edit 1 needed Wronkiew (talk) 04:59, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 10:35, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. Very nice. I have been meaning to get an 8x ND filter for shots like this, actually. Out of interest, did you get a cheap one or a Hoya/similar? Whats your recommendation? I had a look on Ebay the other day and there were some dodgy cheap 77mm ones (£10/AUD$25ish) made from plexiglass which probably speaks volumes for their optical quality. The Hoya ones were a bit pricy though. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 15:45, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * IMHO cheap ND filters won't matter that much, the main problem with cheap filters is flare when you have light sources in the frame, which is rarely the case for this sort of usage. There are supposedly some colour rendition differences, but IMHO it is easily countered for with PP. That said you can get high quality filters fairly cheaply from here. I got mine ages ago when the exchange rate wasn't pitiful. Noodle snacks (talk) 22:56, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment The picture is beautiful but I had a few concerns. With such a long exposure time, the blur in the water is very prominent such that there is no detail visible at all in some places. Isn't this loss of detail a setback to its greater EV? Wouldn't another picture with a shorter exposure time give a more encyclopedic shot? Muhammad (talk) 16:39, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with that. There is really nothing to be gained from seeing the individual droplets of water as they fall. However, from a long exposure, you are able to see the path and density of the 'clouds' of water (I'm visualising as analogous to an electron cloud, but that might be a confusing analogy to a lot of people ;-).. could you describe a waterfall's shape in terms of a probability density plot??) which is both more aesthetic and also more EV, IMO, as a waterfall has a constant flow. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 16:49, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Per below, the visible detail in some places wouldn't change if I'd had a shutter speed of 1/50th of a second; Due to the method used to reduce shutter speed the lighting ratio would stay exactly the same. Noodle snacks (talk) 23:04, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak suppport then, as otherwise very good picture. Muhammad (talk) 05:47, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose for inclusion in Hobart Rivulet, neutral other inclusions I appreciate the artistic merit of this image, but the exposure is too long for encyclopaedic purposes imho, resulting in large areas of the image being almost pure white. I suspect, though, that you've taken an alternative with a shorter exposure that you might be willing to upload. Thanks. Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 19:30, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't, partially because I left my tripod at home and had to precariously balance the camera on a rock. Perhaps it might find the EV you are after in Neutral density filter, where I have added it. The exposure wouldn't change with a shorter shutter speed, the ratio between the light and dark areas of the scene would be exactly the same. No one said it was, but the water isn't blown either. Noodle snacks (talk) 22:56, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't yet have an opinion on the inclusion in the other article. I guess that makes it a "neutral" vote if it sticks in the second article. I may revisit that later. Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 01:07, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Support Alternate - After reading the discussion (btw you guys LOVE discussions!), I change my vote. I like the alternate a lot better than the original. I'm still held back by my previous feelings, though I guess I have to make peace with the fact that this could be an FP that just happens to be in an article it may not be FP status for. ~ Wadester16 (talk) 17:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC) Very Weak Oppose I really do like this photo. It's really quite beautiful; but I do see PLW's points with the long exposure time. It almost lacks realism. I would instantly support this photo with a shorter exposure. ~ Wadester16 (talk) 22:25, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm probably getting redundant with my comments here. I feel it is worth pointing out that should I have removed my neutral density filters and polariser (which wouldn't really look as good), shot at the same aperture to get a good depth of field and set my ISO to 400. I'd still have a shutter speed of around half a second, you can do the maths yourself if you like. It is going to be pretty blurry regardless; An extra smooth one just isn't so half hearted. Noodle snacks (talk) 23:08, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * When I voted, ND Filter was not an included article. What do I do when the FPC meets the criteria of one page but not another? This meets criteria for ND Filter, but not for the water body itself. I'm not a photographer, and therefore don't know all the technicals on lenses and filters, so based on Hobart Rivulet, I don't think it meets the criteria (as I said previously, it's not realistic; more specifically I would claim that this doesn't meet the criteria of an accurate exposure (#1, bullet 1) - and I don't mean an accurate exposure for the situation given. I assume this could be re-photographed without the ND Filter and offer a more realistic representation). WRT Neutral density filter, it does meet that need because it is a direct example of using this particular filter. This image is more an artsy representation of a general waterfall as opposed to an encyclopedic image of Hobart Rivulet. Just my 2¢ as an outsider (but appreciator!) to the photographic world. ~ Wadester16 (talk) 06:00, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * See this discussion which just started. As I understand it the image should have strong EV in at least one article to pass on that criteria. Noodle snacks (talk) 10:32, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't call it over exposed in the sense that there aren't any blown highlights, but I have uploaded a lifted version. I would ordinarily use a tripod but left it at home this time around. I used a remote release and a fortunately placed rock which achieved the same effect. Noodle snacks (talk) 10:32, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Question Was there much contrast added to this in PP? I wouldn't have expected the shadows to have been so deep... perhaps you could lift them a bit? --Fir0002 10:11, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Contrast was at the default position. I've uploaded a lifted edit, its probably an improvement. Noodle snacks (talk) 10:32, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks better in the thumbnail but a bit rough at 100%... Good waterfall images are always a bit dark because to avoid blown highlights, you must underexpose considerably. Lifting shadows then makes them a bit noisy. Always a compromise! I'm not fussed by the original. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 12:09, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Edit 1 Blurring waterfalls is probably the most obvious photography use of an ND filter (aside from lightning photography perhaps) and this is a nice example --Fir0002 23:32, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

--jjron (talk) 11:32, 30 December 2008 (UTC)