Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ramsau bei Berchtesgaden (DE), Milchstraße über Hochkalter & Hintersee -- 2024 -- 1018-50.jpg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

File:Ramsau bei Berchtesgaden (DE), Milchstraße über Hochkalter & Hintersee -- 2024 -- 1018-50.jpg

[edit]

Voting period ends on 9 Dec 2024 at 03:05:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Milky way over the Hochkalter Massif and Lake Hintersee in Ramsau bei Berchtesgaden, Bavaria, Germany
No, it's supposed to be natural :-) And please, assume good faith, it's your work. You should know (better than us) what you've done in the sky -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:29, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You brought it up, so I'm interested in what you consider being "artificial" in the sky. Is it about emphasising the structure of the Milky Way (high/low or white/black)? I don't understand, assuming good faith, what you're getting at. A. Öztas (talk) 04:37, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. "Emphasising the structure". "High / low, white / black" -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:52, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Will you also explain why you quote it like that or do you want me to guess? A. Öztas (talk) 04:58, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You guessed well and put words (your own words) on the issue mentioned above -- Basile Morin (talk) 06:04, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly don't think a painting brush was used, the milky way has brighter borders on each side that can naturally be captured by long exposure photos -- Giles Laurent (talk) 09:53, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Giles Laurent: , thanks for your comment. Please take a look at the 3 versions in the history. Resize them at the same size, and superimpose them, each separately. Then you realize very clearly that yes, a painting brush was used. Moreover, it's very possible also that the initial upload was already more or less heavily edited. In this version, the center of the sky is too dark, and certainly not faithful -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:32, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't know exactly what you mean by painting brush - it's the first time I've heard the term in this context - but if you mean masking, I've already commented on this with regard to the white and black levels. I'm just surprised at the astonishment, as this is a common process in image processing. Or are we talking at cross purposes? A. Öztas (talk) 13:11, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Painting brush" is the official name on many software editors, isn't it? Usually an icon with a "painting brush" 🖌. Now there's a 4th version uploaded. Not yet observed. But If you darken selectively some areas here and there, while the sky is supposed to be a giant uniform surface, it makes it fake -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:41, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for clarifying, what you mean. By your reasoning, wouldn't most photos then qualify as "fake", not only on FP? We can discuss this matter on my talk page, if you want. This would not only apply to (even slight) HDR images but also to those where, for example, a building is subtly emphasized. If you set the threshold for "fake" at any adjustment that doesn’t globally affect the entire image, then so be it — at least that's a clear position. As for the term "painting brush", as I mentioned earlier, I wasn't familiar with it in this context. In the software I use, this tool is called "draw mask". Either way, I hope we’ve now discussed this topic thoroughly. --A. Öztas (talk) 18:45, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion continues below and I'm also interested in talking with other participants, having different points of view -- Basile Morin (talk) 22:50, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've just checked the picture on my computer (I was previously on my phone) and it seems you were right that a painting brush was used.
However I don't think the result is very different at first sight from adjusting curves/exposure adjustments, which is something a lot of people do and the result doesn't look unatural to me (especially if you compare it to something really unnatural like this). But perhaps the center of the milky way was darkened too much (it's not supposed to be that much darker) and perhaps the brighter part shouldn't have been brightened with a paiting brush but with a global exposure/contrast adjustment because looking at thumbnail we see the brushstrokes and comparing it to the previous version, the brighter parts changed shape and were extended, which in the end changed a bit the shape of the milky way and is something that shouldn't happen.
Also, there's one other new thing I've noted now, there's a strange change change of exposure in this zone that might be improved -- Giles Laurent (talk) 17:28, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Should be fixed, both. --A. Öztas (talk) 18:45, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Abstain Painting brush removed. @Giles Laurent: there's a noticeable difference between the second-third-fourth and the fifth version, and in the previous ones, there was no reason to darken artificially some zones in the sky so as to create strong and unnatural contrasts. Thanks for pointing this out, and for confirming the manipulation was not only my subjective impression. The sky is supposed to be flat. So the normal processing in this case is not local touches but should be global, yes -- Basile Morin (talk) 22:50, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Ramsau_bei_Berchtesgaden_(DE),_Milchstraße_über_Hochkalter_%26_Hintersee_--_2024_--_1018-50.jpg&oldid=965041357"