Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Rose Kardinal crop.jpg

Rosa Kardinal[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Jun 2013 at 07:58:35 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Laitche (talk • contribs) 10:01, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reason: High quality image.
Articles in which this image appears: Hybrid tea rose
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Plants/Flowers
Creator: Laitche

Support as nominator --Laitche (talk) 07:58, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ has good EV. No obvious flaws. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 18:38, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Alt 1, much better! --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 00:15, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I added an alt, reducing the blown out reds. Roses are a great reason to dive into Photoshop's Lab color mode. It's clear the rose is oversaturated in the original photograph, but when you re-visit the photograph in Photoshop, you will also see how nearly blown out the 'a' channel is. Using the 'a' channel as a mask, you can reduce the red in both the flower and surrounding "atmosphere". Anyway, there we go, a rose with visible detail. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 19:06, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ✿ --Laitche (talk) 02:13, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Alt 1 Rreagan007 (talk) 23:56, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The color in edit 1 seems far more unnatural than the original, whose deep color seems to me to be more a result of the ambient lighting than overcorrection in post. Actually, I'm not a fan of the image in general. The composition leaves much to be desired (arbitrarily placed semi-in-focus leaf at the top-right, awkward central position of the subject, lack of lead room, inorganic-looking things on the ground). I won't get in the way and oppose, but those are my thoughts. Juliancolton (talk) 20:03, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A fair point. I did leave a message on Laitche's talk page regarding redoing his image from the source file. In addition, he knows what the flower actually looks like (color-wise), while all I did was to bring down saturation. Further color correction may even be required. I've abstained from voting myself as I'm not sure what constitutes featured status for flowers. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 21:12, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

May be that depends on a monitor, in my monitor the original looks better. Thanks Juliancolton ✿ --Laitche (talk) 03:28, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That inorganic thing is for Irrigation sprinkler :) --Laitche (talk) 04:18, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I suggest those seeing the original picture as oversaturated are perhaps using a wide-gamut monitor and viewing the picture on their browser (which typically doesn't try converting the sRGB jpg to your monitor's wider-gamut colourspace) or have Photoshop or their OS set up incorrectly. The first picture looks fine (though I'm not really going wow enough to support). The second picture is more orangy/brown and the foliage more green/yellow like the change from overcast to when the sun comes out. Some browsers can be set to be colourspace-aware but in my experience this just causes colour-banding as they aren't as clever as Photoshop/Lightroom (they just do nearest-colour rather than dither). I find it best to leave the browser ignorant of colourspace and change my monitor setting to sRGB when viewing photos on the web. For image editing, I set the monitor to AdobeRGB (which is the profile my OS is set to know about) and use Photoshop/Lightroom. Also I strongly discourage playing about with colours with someone's JPG. JPGs are like baked cookies and it is too late to change the recipie! You need to go back to the raw file or a 16-bit TIFF in order to manipulate colours properly. I don't think the original rose has blown colours at all, and you wouldn't be able to rescue them from a JPG if it did. Colin°^Talk 12:57, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I already have tried from the RAW again but I missed something (^^; Here. If I have time to retry I will. Thanks Colin ✿ --Laitche (talk) 15:58, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally I don't have a monitor that can display AdobeRGB so my camera's RAW setting is sRGB. --Laitche (talk) 16:24, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well I don't think there's much wrong with the colours. You can play with the brightness to taste really. Btw, your camera's raw has no colourspace. It needs interpreted into a colourspace by the raw converter. The AdobeRGB/sRGB setting on your camera is for the JPGs it produces (which may actually be embedded in your raw file as a preview image). You only need to choose a colourspace when exporting as a JPG or TIFF, and sRGB is perfect for the web. In some ways, be grateful you don't have a wide gamut monitor. They can be a hassle. Colin°^Talk 16:40, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My camera (Canon EOS-1D Mark III) can set AdobeRGB RAW mode but I can't see AdobeRGB in my monitor so now setting sRGB RAW mode. When I buy a wide gamut monitor, will camera set AdobeRGB RAW mode. I may be hassled :) --Laitche (talk) 17:06, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK, raw files have no colourspace. I've been unable to find anything that suggests Canon is different, though plenty to suggest camera menus can be misleadingly labelled. The colour profile setting will influence the preview JPG that can be embedded in a raw file and any JPG you save alongside the raw file (if that option is chosen) and may be a hint to Canon's raw converter software on your PC. But there's nothing in the raw file that limits or fixes the colourspace. A raw file contains more colours than either sRGB or AdobeRGB and needs a fair bit of work done to it before one can really talk about "colours" anyway. Colin°^Talk 19:17, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I had misunderstood about my camera, they have sRGB mode and AdobeRGB mode but that is not about RAW, I think. I got my camera two or three weeks ago (used one), so don't understand about that particularly, heheh :) --Laitche (talk) 08:48, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why I didn't realize, Yes RAW have no colourspace as you are saying. --Laitche (talk) 08:56, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confused. What color is it really? The first pic looks most natural (and attractive). It's OK, I guess. Probably would have supported if not for the confusion.TCO (talk) 20:26, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The original has most really natural color, I think ✿ --Laitche (talk) 21:13, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Maybe I'm wrong about the oversaturation in the first picture? I've photographed very red roses before and I always thought that color just came off really strong. It's not oversaturated in the sense that I can't see any details anymore. My alt is definitely leaning toward orange, and I wasn't trying to make a point regarding color (in fact, I say that only Laitche would know the true color of the rose). I tried some color management tests online with two browsers, FireFox and Safari, and I seem to pass the tests, but honestly, if my calibration is slightly off, I wouldn't even know about it. My dad owns a ColorMonkey thingy, maybe I should try that someday. Anyway, back on topic, the new alt 2 seems to be an even deeper red. Hopefully I'm seeing that correctly. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 20:59, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 08:26, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]