Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/View from Chatham Islands

View from Chatham Islands

Reason: The picture deserves to be nominated as the contrast definitely attracts the readers attention to know about the site, which in this case is a farm area in the Chatham Islands.
Articles this image appears in: Chatham Islands, Te Tai Tonga
Creator: Ville Miettinen

Support as nominator --Staticbullet (talk) 23:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unfortunately. This is not the best illustration to show Chatham Islands. Its primary subject here is a farm, not the island. The weather seems unusual as well. Is it always cloudy like this? I'd like to see the island's natural resources (not human-made) or atleast a farther view to prevent me from thinking "what's over that hill?". Also, I am somewhat seeing a "glow" effect when zoomed upclose. This leaves me puzzled, as the file details show no software used for effects. Maybe Chromatic aberration??? Zoo Fari 23:27, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The light is definitely strange down there, with an eeery glow sometimes. That said, I suspect this is a combination of early morning light in the golden hour coming through the clouds, and possibly wind driven mist causing greater amounts of diffusion. It is incredibly windy down there (it isn't called the Roaring forties for nothing), and the background appears to show some pretty windswept sea. Mostlyharmless (talk) 06:14, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply It is almost certainly an artefact of HDR tone mapping - in fact I could probably pin point it further as created in Photomatix (it is at least typical of Photomatix output) --Fir0002 07:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Definitely not chromatic aberration. Composition is fine, with the only technical problem being a very small section of blown whites in the sky. Durova^Charge! 05:26, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Oversharpened, possibly after initial motion blur. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 21:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per PLW. Decent enough EV since the place is mostly pasture; just not high enough quality. Makeemlighter (talk) 04:19, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The lack of sharpness looks like a badly done HDR to me. Noodle snacks (talk) 05:19, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not positive that it's HDR. The dynamic range does look fairly wide in the scene, but it looks more like soft focus/spherical aberration to me. The patch of darker sea could be the result a shadow cast by the clouds... Then again, it could be HDR. I just wouldn't be too quick to assume though. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 07:33, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hence why I didn't say it was an HDR :P Noodle snacks (talk) 07:38, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Not outright - you implied. ;-) And my reply was sort of to everyone who was discussing what the cause of the lack of sharpness/haloes might be, not specifically just to you. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 08:03, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I was right to imply though. On flickr it is in the user's set "HDR". Noodle snacks (talk) 08:17, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Oooh yeah, and tagged with Photomatix too. Okay, credit where credit is due. Fir0002 wins the prize. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 08:30, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Off-topic discussion of Photomatix

- - - - I wouldn't bag photomatix too much though. It is capable of very reasonable results set correctly. Noodle snacks (talk) 09:09, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        The trick is setting it correctly. I find the controls quite counter-intuitive and the way it creates haloes and artifacts in areas where there is slight movement between frames is quite annoying. I find exposure blending gives far more realistic images - sometimes lacking in contrast, but if you blend them to create a 16 bit image, you can do any alterations you need in Photoshop (add contrast, saturation, masking etc) without posterisation... Just my preference though. And we're starting to spam the nomination. ;-) I'll have Dschwen on my case asking what this has to do with the image again. Sigh. Diliff

Oh my bad, I just tried to nominate this, and got *really* confused about how fast all these comments popped up, before realising it's been nominated and shot down before. But 2 nominations isn't worth anything? Aaadddaaammm (talk) 17:29, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 08:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]