Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Tunnel View, Yosemite Valley, Yosemite NP - Diliff.jpg

File:Tunnel View, Yosemite Valley, Yosemite NP - Diliff.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 22 Jun 2013 at 12:19:09 (UTC)

Original – The Yosemite Valley as viewed from Tunnel View, a well known viewpoint at the entrance of the park.

Alt 1 - Not for voting, just reference

Alt 2 - Not for voting, just reference

Alt 3 - Not for voting, just reference

Alt 4 - Not for voting, just reference

Reason: A famous view of the Yosemite Valley, very detailed and taken on a reasonably clear and crisp spring day, maximising the flow of the waterfall.
Articles in which this image appears: Tunnel View and Yosemite National Park
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Landscapes
Creator: User:Diliff

Support as nominator --Ðiliff «» (Talk) 12:19, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Future support from me, but on Tunnel View, there are two nearly identical images right next to each other. Kind of diminishes the EV of both, imo. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 15:50, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That kind of makes sense, though, doesn't it? It's an article about a specific outlook, so it's kind of unlikely that the images are going to be different... 18:25, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. Like Cowtowner (sort of) mentions below, a second image should show the same view from, say, a different time of day. I do not think your image should have dramatic lighting—to be honest, I find this image dramatic enough and it's refreshing to see it when most of us would see it, not during the rare occurrence of rainbows, storm clouds, and crepuscular rays. But two images that look remarkably similar simply makes this image an equal to the other. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 18:41, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The obvious solution would be to simply remove the inferior image then. We wouldn't keep a redundant image in other articles. With regards to dramatic, I'm not referring to spectacular lighting, but an average day at Yosemite can mean a lot of things (I'd also note that we do usually look for lighting in other photos that are often atypical of the area-say expecting sun in a typically overcast region)Cowtowner (talk) 22:24, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, I don't think more aesthetic lighting would hurt; as it stands it's both a wonderful photo and encyclopedic. Cowtowner (talk) 23:52, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understood you. And I think the fact that it's fairly flat lighting and still looks good goes to show that the golden hour or a blazing sunset isn't a requirement for a good mountain landscape photograph. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 00:53, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is also one of the most famously beautiful panoramas in North America, it's got a bit of a head start on being photogenic. But, you are right that it is a good illustration of why exceptional light isn't a requirement for FP (and perhaps a detriment). Cowtowner (talk) 08:11, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I actually took four or five different photos of this scene on various days and different time of day during my stay in Yosemite, and although some of them were more dramatic, I uploaded this one as I think it shows the scene in the most balanced way. When the sun was too bright, or at an oblique angle, the shadows were quite unaesthetic. The sunset photo was not as spectacular as some might imagine. By the time the sun is on or just below the horizon, huge swathes of the valley are in deep shadow and only the tips of the mountains receive any direct light at all. It's possible that a sunrise photo might work better, but I wasn't prepared to wake up at 4am to capture it. ;-) Ðiliff «» (Talk) 14:02, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea how photographers do it. I'd love to be able to get up at the wolf hour with a smile on my face and hike up to some godforsaken location all chipper, commanding the skies to be one-of-a-kind, but instead I'm drooling and sawing zzz's. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 15:21, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it can be a challenge. I just uploaded another four 'Tunnel View' photos that I took on the trip with varying lighting/weather/time of day. I assume you'll agree with me that the original is probably the best to illustrate the view. Others have their quirks and advantages, but I wasn't entirely happy with any of them. Such is a photographer's lot. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 09:33, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting comparisons, thanks for doing that! Alts 1 and 2 seem to really show off the Bridalveil, but I certainly agree that the original image is the best for the overall view. Actually it's quite the shot, avoiding harsh shadows and harsh sunlight. Thanks for the PTGui suggestion, I'll look into it further later this week. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 17:11, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support, though more dramatic lighting, as in your Half Dome image, would make me go wild. Cowtowner (talk) 18:25, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - epic colors in the sky would help if you were looking for votes on 500px, but the soft and consistent light works very well here. Not especially concerned about the similar photos on the Tunnel View page. Juliancolton (talk) 21:58, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well, I've stated my little thing above, but this image is the better of the two (on the Tunnel View article) and the image is gorgeous on the Yosemite NP article. Exif data doesn't say what camera was used? – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 22:17, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It was taken with a Canon 5D Mk III, it's not in the EXIF data because the image is stitched - the stitching program removes it but somehow keeps the exposure info. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 06:09, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks. I am really digging the aspect ratio, 1.53. Probably my favorite cinema ratio is 1.66, but I'm finding yours to be a "grand" ratio, absolutely fitting the landscape perfectly. What stitching program, just out of curiosity? I tried learning Hugin but apparently it's for smart people. I need to watch a couple tutorials to figure that one out some day. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 15:21, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Diliff uses Ptgui with smartblend as stated on his userpage. dllu (t,c) 03:56, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Dllu. Yeah, Hugin is quite similar to PTGui. I've tried both but I tend to prefer PTGui, probably more out of familiarity than anything else. They can essentially do exactly the same job though. To understand how it works, it just takes a bit of practice and the understanding of how the different projections affect the result. You also need to know how to shoot the actual images (ie keep the exposures consistent, allow for significant overlap, etc). Ðiliff «» (Talk) 09:33, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support dllu (t,c) 22:26, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -BNK(talk) 02:24, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Laitche (talk) 18:27, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Tunnel View, Yosemite Valley, Yosemite NP - Diliff.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 14:06, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]