Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Chaga hut.jpg

Traditional Chaga Hut[edit]

Reason: Good quality and very good EV. I thought the Bank of Tanzania would be my last TZ related nom but found a few more images. Compared to the only other image of the subject, this one is pretty good.
Articles this image appears in: Chaga, Hut (dwelling)
Creator: User:Muhammad Mahdi Karim

Support as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 16:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Does anyone else see the reddish hue around every leaf, and the sky is looking purple on my computer. I wanted to ask about it before voting. Other pictures are showing correct, as well as the tests above. Thank you very much!! Zulualpha (talk) 19:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe a blown sky was removed? I've done that before, and if you don't find a good replacement for the sky, it comes out looking something like this, especially if the fill-in isn't carefully done. Given the lighting, I'd say it was probable. Thegreenj 21:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The sky was blown to some extent and I tried to recover the blown areas. If anybody wants to give it a retry, I can provide the blown version as well --Muhammad(talk) 02:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Did you shoot in raw? If you did, why not provide the original and a -1 EV version. That would be a good start. If you're determined to replace the sky with nothing but the blown version, you may want to try using a much lighter, somewhat desaturated blue gradient as your sky. That said, I'm not sure I would consider totally replacing the sky (as appears to have been done here) appropriate encyclopedia ethics. Thegreenj 03:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I would much rather a blown sky (sometimes this is unavoidable, and I wouldn't necessarily oppose for it) than an a faked sky which is simply overexposure that has been darkened, and is therefore missing all colour info (essentially grey). I don't really agree with using a blue gradient either, as it would likely not look realistic, not to mention the ethical issues. If the raw file exists, it might be possible to recover but even then, not always. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 12:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Uploaded original I didn't shoot raw. --Muhammad(talk) 09:04, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank goodness others see it... I thought I needed to adjust my moniter. I'm an amateur photographer and also currently working as a photography assistant. We shoot with film and therefore I am not as familiar with photo-shopping techniques. Would “fixing” the blown sky on the computer also account for the red hue around the leaves, or is that another problem? Zulualpha (talk) 15:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I only see the red hue on leaves where they touch the sky, so I assume that's a part of it. Staxringold _talk^contribs 16:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Or possibly chromatic aberration. The high contrast boundary between a leaf and a blown sky would definitely bring that out. Thegreenj 17:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm glad to see the comments above so I know I'm not crazy, that sky looks VERY awkward. Staxringold _talk^contribs 13:49, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I've never seen grey blown highlights here before, but there you go. Might be recoverable in RAW, but that only makes the chromatic aberration look worse. MER-C 04:46, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thegreen, Diliff anything you can do about the original, any comments? --Muhammad(talk) 08:50, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- By the look of the original, no, but it would really depend if you shot it in RAW and could recover the highlights there. It looks beyond recovery to be honest. But having said that, I don't think the blown sky is that important. It would be nice if it wasn't, but I've shot in forests quite often and it is nearly impossible to retain detail in the sky when properly exposing for the forest floor. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:25, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree about the blown sky being unimportant. A few lines of clouds would not affect the EV of this image and otherwise the quality is pretty good, right? --Muhammad(talk) 12:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's not just the blown sky though, the whole top of the hut seems overly flushed with light - again probably a side-effect of the shooting conditions. You could try to selectively edit that, but I'd tend to say it just doesn't come up to FP standards, difficulty of shooting conditions notwithstanding (though they typically are ignored). Would support it at VPC though (please don't give me a lecture about mentioning VP as some users are wont to do ;-) ). --jjron (talk) 14:55, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I don't see why a small part of the image which provides no additional information should affect the larger part of the image. And apart from the exposure, it is otherwise very good and we have been known to make exceptions in rare cases. --Muhammad(talk) 02:43, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        The overexposed/flushed out 'roof' of the hut is probably 1/3 of the high EV part of the image - that's hardly a 'small part'. --jjron (talk) 08:06, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support original unedited version only Too bad for the blown sky, but anybody who've been in a forest will understand. On the other hand the grey sky of the edited version looked completely fake. Except for the sky, the picture is great, with a lot of EV (Bonus point for the great caption in the summary. Wish all FPC would have this kind of caption !). I would have liked to see more Tanzania's pictures (and I mean real people/place, not insects or flowers :p). Ksempac (talk) 09:40, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose "original", wow, that just looks.. ..uncanny! How is that even remotely an improvement? Weak support alternative (real original), the blown sky cheapens the look of the image, but this is great stuff none the less. I find this way more interesting than the umpteenth insect macro. --Dschwen 22:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support unedited version. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 188 FCs served} 09:01, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Chaga_hut_noadj.jpg Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 13:06, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With 3 supports and 1 weak support, this does not have enough support to meet the requirement. Issue raised here: here. Makeemlighter (talk) 01:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]