Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/The baroque garden at Drottningholm Palace

The baroque garden at Drottningholm Palace
Voting period ends on 5 Nov 2019  at 09:07:11 (UTC)
 * Reason:High quality. (See also Drottningholm Palace)
 * Articles in which this image appears:Drottningholm Palace
 * FP category for this image:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
 * Creator:Martin Kraft


 * Support as nominator – --- Coffee  and crumbs  09:07, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. Being part of a World Heritage Site gives it enough EV despite the secondary level of this photo within its article. A nice formally framed view of a subject for which that treatment is appropriate. Some of the area surrounding the window has dropped off into total blackness but I think that's only a minor flaw. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:08, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Geoffroi  22:37, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.2% of all FPs 02:50, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Arresting photo with good EV Nick-D (talk) 09:48, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. MER-C 14:40, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Looks over-processed, i.e. HDR effects. Kaldari (talk) 16:45, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * "This photo is a single shot, no HDR, no [retouches], no cut and paste", according to the photographer. --- Coffee  and crumbs  17:19, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * From the discussion you linked to, it sounds like the over-processed appearance is due to lightening the shadows while darkening the sky (which is superficially similar to the effect you would get with HRD). According to the featured image criteria "Typical acceptable manipulation includes cropping, perspective correction, sharpening/blurring, and colour/exposure correction. More extensive manipulation should be clearly described in the image text." Selective lightening and darkening (especially to the point where it looks unnatural) seems like it would qualify as "more extensive manipulation". The unmanipulated original image would be more appropriate for Wikipedia (if the photographer was willing to provide it). Kaldari (talk) 20:57, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * What exactly do you mean by "unmanipulated original"? The raw file? Afaik there is no way to upload raws to commons. And to get a view from the RAW-data one needs some kind of development anyway. And all I did to develop this photo was an overall enhancement of the gradation. So basicly the same thing almost every a bit more experience photographer does in Lightroom with almost anny image - not even talking about smartphones and consumer cameras, that have this kind of image processinge already built in. Anyhow: The atmosphere of this image comes quite close to what a saw there with my own eyes that day (Here is a view from the opposite direction). And the fact that cameras nowadays are able to handle a dynamic range that comes closer to the one of out eyes, imo makes a shot more realistic than less. // Martin Kraft (talk) 16:00, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm sure you know what I mean by "unmanipulated original". I agree that enhancing photographs is commonplace and generally desirable. Wikipedia, however, prefers purely documentary photographs over beautiful photographs (unlike Commons). My issue with the photo is that the scenery appears brightly lit, as if on a sunny cloudless day, while the sky appears full of heavy clouds (that somehow don't have any shadows). To my eye, it looks unreal. The composition is superb, however, and I would gladly support featuring a less manipulated version. I hope that sounds reasonable. Kaldari (talk) 16:34, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * No sorry, I really do not know, what you mean by "unmanipulated original". Because something like "the original" does not exist in digital photography, since every step that goes beyond the raw elektronic information coming from the chip already is a manipulation of this data. And that is not limeted to the things a photograprapher can do in post processing but also includes the things the camera itself is doing to generate a preview version from the very same data. As you might know a professional cameras support a lot of parameters, that define how this preview is developed from the raw. Consumer cameras also include this development process, usually one can only use presets. The idea that there is such a thing as a digital original is therefore an illusion. This aside, I doupt that the image would be any better from an encyclopedic point of view, if the dynamic range of the image would be so limited, that the sky burns out to white while the frame is solid black. Please do not confuse the limited dynamic range we are used to by older cameras, with what was really visible there to the clear eye. Standing on the window, I did not neither see black underexposed areas nor a burned out sky, but the clouds as well as the paint on the frame. One last comment about the weather: There are a lot of weather conditions between gloomy cloudy and crystal clear sky. And about the best weather condition ist the one yout see here: A lot of moving clouds of different opacity, that deliver as sunny ligthing without hard shadows. Of course yout are free to stick to you're judgement, but please note, that there is no absolute right or wrong when it comes to the color grading of a photograph. // Martin Kraft (talk) 17:17, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I didn't say unprocessed original, I said unmanipulated original (I'm familiar with using RAW files). And I generally have no problem with digital manipulation, as long as it still looks realistic. I realize that this is a subjective judgement and prone to error, but that's still my judgement. It also looks like someone in the Commons discussion had the same concerns, although I don't now why anyone on Commons would care. Kaldari (talk) 18:02, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

--Armbrust The Homunculus 15:15, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Placed image in Places/Others instead. Armbrust The Homunculus 15:15, 5 November 2019 (UTC)