Support as nominator --Murdockcrc (talk) 19:37, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nice, but I'd argue that its quite underexposed. JJ Harrison (talk) 20:57, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Harrison. Thanks for the comment. I also have a +2EV version of this image. The problem is that all the windows highlights are completely blown out, which makes them distracting on the composition. That's why I uploaded with version with 0 exposure bias. I can't see any other way of fixing this except by doing an HDR, which will introduce a set of other problems... I uploaded a second version, which you can check out here, I played with the curves to increase the exposure. However, honestly, this is certainly not the way you will see this place in real life. In reality, the palace has a very focused illumination, it is not overall brightly lit.--Murdockcrc (talk) 21:24, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One thing you could try is (if you shot this with RAW) to export two or three images with varying exposure compensations (-2EV, 0EV and +2EV for example) and then exposure blend the three photos. I'm not saying you need to have taken three exposure bracketed photos, you can use the one RAW file for this as they contain more dynamic range than a typically contrasty JPEG. This usually does a good job of maintaining highlights without underexposing the rest of the image, and because you're blending from the same RAW image, you don't have the issues with ghosting that you might sometimes get from a bracketed HDR photo. Ðiliff«»(Talk) 09:59, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Yes exactly - some of the whites are already blown in this version, so what it doesn't need is longer exposure. One could argue that it would make more sense to take the photo during the day, but I'm not going to! Aaadddaaammm (talk) 21:27, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose original, alt 1 In it's current form. Blown highlights are acceptable here - the subject is the exterior of the building, not the glimpse of the inside through the windows. At any rate there are multiple exposures available to do some type of blending. JJ Harrison (talk) 10:13, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose. Completely agree with JJ, I was about to say the same thing myself. There's no particular detail of interest through the windows, so it makes sense to expose for the outside of the building and only try to preserve the highlights in the windows as a secondary concern. Ðiliff«»(Talk) 10:26, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hi all. Thank you for your feedback. I will try to edit the picture according to suggestions and will upload an alternative as soon as possible. --Murdockcrc (talk) 17:42, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Alternative 1
Alternative 1 - Night photograph of the Upper Belvedere palace in Vienna, Austria.
With this second version I intend to incorporate the feedback of given so far. I improved the exposure of the palace by modifying the curves on the shadows and midtones. Also, I employed two tools called "High tonal width" and "Low tonal width" to try to make the exposure more vivid without clipping the highlights. Increased contrast and vibrancy. So here you go, you have two alternatives for voting. Thanks. --Murdockcrc (talk) 20:36, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for making an alt, but the contrast is way too high in this - the roof is fluorescent green! Oppose alt, still support original. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 21:37, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if the contrast is significantly higher. In some ways, it looks lower contrast. But there is something a bit strange about the tonality and colours. Maybe it's the white balance. It's hard to know for sure what it should look like without having access to the original RAW files and/or having been there at the time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diliff (talk • contribs) 12:08, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Alternative 2
Alternative 2 - Night photograph of the Upper Belvedere palace in Vienna, Austria.
I had more time to play with the image and I have uploaded this second version. Here I have honestly already reached my post-processing limit! I hope this version solves the exposure issue as well as the color problems of the first alternative. Your feedback on this second version will be highly appreciated. --Murdockcrc (talk) 15:25, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Alternative 2. It's a big improvement over the first two IMO. The colours look a lot more natural. Ðiliff«»(Talk) 17:06, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support alt 2 as it is trippy, but borderlining CGI. Nergaal (talk) 20:07, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for complicating with another edit, but I've done some selective noise removal. Alternative 3: Alternative 2, with very slight noise reduction applied overall, and heavier noise reduction to sky and part of waterMaedin\talk 22:39, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Alternative 3. Maedin\talk 22:39, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The difference between Alt 2 and 3 is very slight, but I suppose I would have a slight preference for 3. Jujutaculartalk 14:23, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Happy with either but if Alt 3 is deemed to be an improvement, I'll support it. Ðiliff«»(Talk) 15:43, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Only a marginal difference, but 3 I think. JJ Harrison (talk) 05:21, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That sentiment could have been more succinctly expressed by saying nothing at all. ;-) Ðiliff«»(Talk) 21:41, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It could have, but I was requested on my talk page to comment. I thought it was marginally better than ignoring it. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 08:02, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
