Wikipedia:Picture peer review/Secondary growth

Secondary growth
Hi guys, hope I filled this out ok. This "process" we see here is apparently called secondary growth. It is a tree growing over a sawn-off lamppost, I can only presume that it will continue to "swallow" the post until fully consumed. I believe this is a unique image on Wikipedia (having done a bit of searching) and just wondered if it had what it takes to be featured? Cheers.


 * Creator:Ryan4314


 * Nominated by: Ryan 4314   (talk) 01:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Re-shoot: Right, I took 12 photos on a tripod, all at various settings. I couldn't find the option to change my camera's "aperture priority mode". I noticed it says F3.5 on the actual camera, so do all cameras have the ability to change this? I was able adjust the exposure and ISO though. I didn't want to upload loads of photos, so I've upped what I thought looked best. If these are no good, I have photos that are more "exposed" or less "exposed", both with differing ISOs.
 * Comments:
 * This is one of those bizarre pictures I like to see nominated, a reminder we are an encyclopedia not a photo contest. However the overall sharpness of the picture does not seem very good and I bet it would generate complaints on FPC. Fletcher (talk) 00:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't personally support it at FPC due to the sharpness issues and I suspect some blown highlights, but it is an interesting picture, and the green works well to give some contrast to the trunk from the background. I'd suggest nominating at WP:VPC instead. Noodle snacks (talk) 00:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I know nothing about editing photos etc. Is "sharpness" something that can't be fixed/improved with editing then? Ryan 4314   (talk) 01:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Noodle Snacks could give you a better answer, but in a nutshell sharpening can help, within limits. The computer can't add detail that wasn't there.  And too much sharpening looks harsh and unnatural (see Unsharp masking).  I dropped the picture into the GIMP and sharpened at the default settings, and still found it too blurry.  Sharpened and scaled down to 25% size I think it looks pretty good, but then it's below the image size requirements for FPs.  Fletcher (talk) 03:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Sharpening generally increases the acutance of an image, which can help the sharpness subjectively to a certain degree but it won't increase the amount of information in an image and it wouldn't do much for a fairly blurry case like this. The image does scrub up alright with a fairly heavy downsample but as suspected the highlights are still blown (and can't be recovered unless you have a RAW available). You could try submission with the downsampled version and hope no one is too muffed about the highlights, but then someone might still complain about the small size for a static subject.
 * If this is an image that you could go and easily reshoot then set your camera in aperture priority mode and to about F5-5.6 or so, the above shot was made wide open at f3.5, where most lenses are at their weakest. The trouble with setting such an aperture is that I don't think the image stabilisation would be able to successfully counter the camera shake at such low shutter speeds. You could bump the ISO to 200 or so (not likely to be pretty on a point and shoot) or borrow/buy a (cheap) tripod, turn off image stabilisation and use the timer so the camera is perfectly still for the shot. Noodle snacks (talk) 10:25, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I can easily go and reshoot the tree, and I understood everything you said EXCEPT, what's the ISO? Also do you think I should replace the image with Fletcher's in the meanwhile? Ryan 4314   (talk) 16:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * There is a relatively in depth explanation of what the ISO setting does at Film_speed. There would be a setting somewhere in the camera. The best results will be achieved leaving it set at 75 and using the tripod/timer method though. Higher ISO settings (200, 400 etc) give you a faster shutter speed at the expense of more noise basically. Also, when you shoot it, set your exposure compensation down a bit to avoid the blown section on the tree. Noodle snacks (talk) 03:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I should probably note that edited version was Noodle Snacks' as I was too lazy to upload mine, though I am more than happy to take the credit. =P Fletcher (talk) 04:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Aye, I forgot to mention it, either way a reshoot is the best way forward here. Noodle snacks (talk) 05:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * A second "shoot" has been arranged. Should I post the new image here? Or start a new review? Ryan 4314   (talk)
 * Here should be fine. Fletcher (talk) 03:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Also I've just realised these new one's are just as "zoomed-out" as the last re-shoot, I really have wasted my time here ay? Well aside from the framing, and the shadows, were the pictures at least taken with the right settings? ;) Ryan 4314   (talk) 15:25, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep, apart from the new problems its pretty right, I'd go with -1 and F5.0 when the conditions are right. These are quite a lot sharper than the originals. Sorry for the delay in response, I was away. Noodle snacks (talk) 01:33, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem, I appreciate you taking the time to stick with this. Ryan 4314   (talk) 03:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems late in the day and you can even see the shadows changing position between the different sets. The light changes very fast then making it hard to tell which exposure is the "right" one, but Noodle snacks' choice seems like a good one. Fletcher (talk) 23:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * We actually took this set earlier than usual, I didn't realise but after checking the meta data on the previous sets, seems we unintentionally took them both around the same time. Ryan 4314   (talk) 00:46, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Interesting, I thought the lighting looked pretty different. Fletcher (talk) 03:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Please don't archive this review, a third re-shoot is planned.

Update: Sorry, I am still planning another re-shoot, possibly next weekend. Ryan 4314  (talk) 11:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Seconder:

