Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Brazilian Porcupine
- Reason
- high resolution, good focus, rare picture
- Articles this image appears in
- Brazilian Porcupine
- Creator
- Dave Pape
- Support as nominator --CaSclafani (talk) 04:29, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Strongoppose The blue hue is the major problem for this image. ZooFari 04:45, 9 December 2008 (UTC)- Oppose per Zoofari, who knew Brazilian Porcupines were so sad?D-rew (talk) 05:09, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Water selectively adsorbs and scatters parts of the light spectrum. The effect is increased with depth. Therefore you need to provide a light source (eg flash) to get realistic colour. Noodle snacks (talk) 05:57, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- I'm totally confused by the hue of this picture! I'm pretty sure it's not water... I've never heard of a porcupine underwater. 65.112.12.39 (talk) 13:12, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - is there any way we could remove
somea lot of the blue tint? it's still a valuable contribution to the project. Intothewoods29 (talk) 06:58, 9 December 2008 (UTC)- Yes, but you'd just end up with something practically monochromatic, one might as well convert it to black and white... Noodle snacks (talk) 11:00, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- I believe the blue was the actual lighting at the zoo exhibit. I dont think it's normally a day light creature so they make it work for the animal, that being said i enjoy the effect it gives the picture. CaSclafani (talk) 19:15, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- The picture was taken on a canon 350D. If the photographer took the picture in RAW it's just a matter of clicking a button to correct white balance. If it wwas taken in jpeg then all is lost(literally).Victorrocha (talk) 19:33, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- Even if this was taken in RAW it would be unrecoverable to an acceptable level - the colour data just isn't there. Oh and Oppose per above --Fir0002 22:46, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- Um.... I've taken pictures with a completely different white balance and even with tinted lights and it seems to come out just as good as any other... Perhaps a different method of RAW conversion? Victorrocha (talk) 22:01, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- I mainly use DPP for RAW conversion. I take kindergarten photos and have used bounce flash on painted ceilings which obviously casts a tint on the pictures. And from my experience, and I flatter myself that I'm fairly adept with post processing, you can never recover a natural light/colour balance. Yes you can improve the image, but you'll always be able to tell. In an extreme case such as this I highly doubt you'll even get to a reasonable degree of colour accuracy. I've never worked with such an extreme case however so I might be mistaken --Fir0002 04:05, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- I work on editing images, and I am well experienced with the physical science of the visible spectrum. This image doesn't reveal much true color, therefore it can not be restored. As mentioned before, it ends up monochromatic because the only color here is really just blue. In other words, it contains only the contrast, brightness, and hue of cyan shown in the color spectrum (you'd understand if you know deeply how the visible spectrum works). Unless photographly acquired a RAW compatible image (image with little or more color), there is no way this image's color will be improved. Even if you try, you will see that the hue will always remain blue. ZooFari 04:48, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- Let me summarise as I understand it: basically the issue is when the light source is literally missing part of the visible light spectrum (eg with sodium lights, bounce flash off a coloured wall, etc) then it doesn't matter if you try to correct it with white balance, it will always be missing that spectrum component. However, if it was just a white balance issue when processing, then yes it probably could be corrected if you went back to the RAW file. So really, without knowing the lighting conditions, you cannot really know for sure whether it is recoverable. Certainly though, it looks pretty unrecoverable from the JPEG. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:42, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- Well RAW is very interesting in the fact that it saves an image uncompressed by saving the actual "colors" of the photons that hit the sensor. The white balance is just a change of the tint made to the overall picture. Diliff is right in saying that once it is converted to jpeg all hope is lost for recovery (which is why I switched to RAW). Victorrocha (talk) 06:47, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- Right, but the problem here is that the blue is almost certainly not coming from a white balance problem but from the zoo's lighting for nocturnal animals; to use your words, "the actual 'colors' of the photons that hit the sensor" are blue. Thegreenj 03:20, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
- Well RAW is very interesting in the fact that it saves an image uncompressed by saving the actual "colors" of the photons that hit the sensor. The white balance is just a change of the tint made to the overall picture. Diliff is right in saying that once it is converted to jpeg all hope is lost for recovery (which is why I switched to RAW). Victorrocha (talk) 06:47, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- Let me summarise as I understand it: basically the issue is when the light source is literally missing part of the visible light spectrum (eg with sodium lights, bounce flash off a coloured wall, etc) then it doesn't matter if you try to correct it with white balance, it will always be missing that spectrum component. However, if it was just a white balance issue when processing, then yes it probably could be corrected if you went back to the RAW file. So really, without knowing the lighting conditions, you cannot really know for sure whether it is recoverable. Certainly though, it looks pretty unrecoverable from the JPEG. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:42, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- I work on editing images, and I am well experienced with the physical science of the visible spectrum. This image doesn't reveal much true color, therefore it can not be restored. As mentioned before, it ends up monochromatic because the only color here is really just blue. In other words, it contains only the contrast, brightness, and hue of cyan shown in the color spectrum (you'd understand if you know deeply how the visible spectrum works). Unless photographly acquired a RAW compatible image (image with little or more color), there is no way this image's color will be improved. Even if you try, you will see that the hue will always remain blue. ZooFari 04:48, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- I mainly use DPP for RAW conversion. I take kindergarten photos and have used bounce flash on painted ceilings which obviously casts a tint on the pictures. And from my experience, and I flatter myself that I'm fairly adept with post processing, you can never recover a natural light/colour balance. Yes you can improve the image, but you'll always be able to tell. In an extreme case such as this I highly doubt you'll even get to a reasonable degree of colour accuracy. I've never worked with such an extreme case however so I might be mistaken --Fir0002 04:05, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- Um.... I've taken pictures with a completely different white balance and even with tinted lights and it seems to come out just as good as any other... Perhaps a different method of RAW conversion? Victorrocha (talk) 22:01, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- Even if this was taken in RAW it would be unrecoverable to an acceptable level - the colour data just isn't there. Oh and Oppose per above --Fir0002 22:46, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- The picture was taken on a canon 350D. If the photographer took the picture in RAW it's just a matter of clicking a button to correct white balance. If it wwas taken in jpeg then all is lost(literally).Victorrocha (talk) 19:33, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- Support Assuming that the blue tint is the actual lighting at the zoo exhibit, this photo shows the animal in its natural (domesticated) environment. The picture is of high resolution, focused nicely, and the subject is well placed in the frame. Rmacker 6:49, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- Comment re spectrum, monochromatic light etc: There is some info in all RGB channels, but R is severely degraded due to its underexposure. There is no way of correcting the colors and maintain image quality, but the color info is there. (I use to edit images, too... ;-) --Janke | Talk 08:09, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- Camera can produce RAW output. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 21:29, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- Support--Avala (talk) 23:57, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- Why? The EV is poor without a reasonable amount of colour. Noodle snacks (talk) 10:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
- The colour is not an error but the real light they use in the zoo. It has high EV to show how are the living conditions of the Brazilian Porcupine recreated in the artificial environment.--Avala (talk) 14:42, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
- Why? The EV is poor without a reasonable amount of colour. Noodle snacks (talk) 10:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Even if this is how the lighting appears in the exhibit, the image is in Brazilian Porcupine, where it has drastically reduced enc. SpencerMerry Christmas! 01:18, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Not promoted --Wronkiew (talk) 05:15, 18 December 2008 (UTC)