Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Mountain range in the Dolomites

Langkofel Group
Voting period ends on 6 Sep 2012 at 16:30:42 (UTC)
 * Reason:Detailed view of the northen side of the range
 * Articles in which this image appears:Langkofel Group
 * FP category for this image:Category:Featured pictures by country
 * Creator:Moroder


 * Support as nominator --Moroderen (talk) 16:30, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. Not a fan of the processing used on the photo (seems quite washed out, like it was exposure blended or something, but without the necessary contrast boost). Other than that though, the EV is undeniable and the scene is pretty impressive. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  22:56, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Neutral. There is a little EV, though I think there are better images in the article. Image quality is a concern of mine. It is not well focused when inspected up close. What Diliff refers to is HDR (multiple-exposures) without the tone mapping. No blame on the creator for that, tone mapping software is expensive. Bare-bones HDR is always going to look better than a single exposure. So until someone can convince me either way, I'll be neutral. -- WingtipvorteX  PTT   ∅  23:14, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * info I stopped doing multiple exposure in the open air because of the blurry results due to the wind on trees. I did not process the image in any way besides some retouching of the sky do to panorama stitching. I think of EV value giving more detailed aspects of the mountain, youseful I hope for hikers and climbers. Thanks for the review --Moroderen (talk) 06:04, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, interesting. Scratch that. You are right about the wind, drives me crazy too. Just saw a video on Photoshop CS6, it takes care of the motion for you when doing HDR. That aside, I'm still neutral on the image. -- WingtipvorteX  PTT   ∅  20:40, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * There's really no substitute for a lack of movement in multiple exposures, everything else is just an attempt to fudge it, but it rarely works particularly well. Think about it - you lose the benefit of the high dynamic range of multiple exposures if you only take the information from a single frame and reject the rest because they didn't align. In any case, I didn't say it was HDR, just that it looked like an exposure blended image lacking in contrast. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  09:40, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I guess it highly depends on how you mix the different exposures. If for a certain section of an image you only use one exposure, then it doesn't cause a problem. If you are blending, then it does, so long as you are doing so manually. I don't know how PS CS6 does it, it is even possible it 'moves' small sections of the images to align it all. I can only guess, as I only saw a video on it.
 * My apologies for my misunderstanding of your statement. -- WingtipvorteX  PTT   ∅  20:12, 1 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Support While this shows quality problems when viewed at 100%, at 50% it's plenty large and it looks good. Pine✉ 08:33, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The weather didn't really play along, unforunately. The haze decreases the quality of the image, and the uneven cloud cover is distracting. Sorry. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 12:14, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * info I added some more toponyms (imagenotes) to the image (for EV) --Moroderen (talk) 07:13, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

--Makeemlighter (talk) 23:06, 9 September 2012 (UTC)