Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Helvellyn Striding Edge 360 Panorama, Lake District - June 09.jpg

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

360 degree view of Helvellyn, Lake District, England[edit]

Original - A 360 degree view from the middle of 'striding edge' near the summit of Helvellyn in the Lake District. Helvellyn is the tallest summit just to the right of centre. Red Tarn is the small lake on the right, Catstye Cam is the fell directly behind Red Tarn, and Ullswater and the village of Glenridding is visible on the horizon along the far left corner.
Reason
It's a complete 360 degree view of the mountain range in the north-west of the Lake District, taken from a classic and interesting arête on the approach to the summit. It's very high resolution and detailed, and taken on about as lovely a day as is possible in England. :-)
Articles this image appears in
Helvellyn
Creator
User:Diliff
  • Support as nominator --Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 12:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Title? ceranthor 13:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It looks heavenly. A near perfect panoramic image.--Pericles of AthensTalk 14:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Good. How do you manage to get such a good coloured and exposed sky? --Muhammad(talk) 18:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • With a circular polarising filter, a really clear, crisp day, and some messing around with the exposure of the individual frames so that they blended properly. ;-) It's still not perfect, but I'm happy enough with it. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 19:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Question How do you avoid banding using a polariser over such a wide angle of view? Do you rotate the filter as you go around? 124.187.249.231 (talk) 07:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I did rotate it as I went around, yeah. Otherwise you get banding, as you say. There will still be inconsistencies in the sky with this method, but I fixed them with adjustments in lightroom on each individual frame as needed. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 08:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support Not really a fan of 360° panoramas. IMHO, two separate cuts (one of the valley, one of the lake) would work better and be much more useful. Presumably you were standing on a ridge, with the lake on one side, and the valley on the other, but you really don't get that sense from the 360° view. OTOH, the resolution and sharpness are awesome, so anyone could crop it and get a good result. Meh, I'm probably being too picky. Stevage 09:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I know what you mean, but as long as the viewer understands that what they're looking at is a much wider view than human eyes can see (even if it's more difficult to visualise spacially), I don't know if two separate images could really match it for EV. A 360 degree view shows the interrelatedness of the whole scene, for want of a better word. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fwiw, I did a quick crop test here showing just the valley, and as expected, I find it a much more satisfying image to look at. It's sort of the difference between looking at a photo and looking at a CAT scan. Yes, the CAT scan technically contains more information, but the photo is more pleasant to look at. (Just as an aside, I take quite a lot of panoramas, but I've never had one more than about 180° that I particularly liked. You always end up with boring bits, or stuff you'd rather crop out, though you're exceptionally lucky on both fronts here.) Stevage 00:23, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I had the same first impression but quickly remembered two things: first, a 360 pano never looks good in 2 dimensions. You need a proper image viewer to do it real justice but, if it's a good capture, simply scrolling horizontally should be just like being at the scene yourself, turning full-circle to take in the view. The second thing was recalling being there myself as a hugely intimidated schoolkid, a 10kg lump of quartzite in my rucksack, braced against a howling gale, taking in the same view, albeit with much less visibility. Nah, this is an awesome capture. Support although personally I'd crop 350px off the top. --mikaultalk 13:44, 2 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Question At the very top of the image, approximately two fifths of the way from the left side there are some odd streaks of white and greenish blue. I'm assuming they're various reflections of sunbeams (off the filter?) - is there a way to remove them? I love these landscape shots and vote to Support, but would prefer not to have those distractions if they're an artifact of the apparatus. Matt Deres (talk) 16:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sun rays? --Muhammad(talk) 18:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Lens flare, surely. I thought about mentioning it too. Could be cloned, or just cropped. Stevage 00:23, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yeah, lens flare. I think I'll just crop it out, as I agree with Mick that it wouldn't hurt to crop the sky slightly which would also make the top of the clouds look less stretched. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 15:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't have access to a graphics program right now to check, but I'd be careful about cropping too much. It's true the clouds look a little off, but the ratio of sky to land right now looks very good. Is cloning or retouching a possibility or not feasible? Matt Deres (talk) 00:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Must have been quite a bit of burning and dodging if you used a polariser. Noodle snacks (talk) 12:29, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not so much dodging and burning as applying graduated filter local adjustments using Lightroom to the frames. Then Smartblend did the rest. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 15:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Awesome! what a great detail. - Damërung ...ÏìíÏ..._Ξ_ . --  15:14, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support Nice image and scenery and unbelievably good weather (in England), but the switching stitched work is a bit unnatural.--Caspian blue 16:23, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Switching? You mean stitching? In what sense is it unnatural? Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 16:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hmm..typo, so I fix it. It is hard to describe it in English for me. That is basically agreeing with Stevage's opinion.--Caspian blue 17:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Brilliant clarity - I've spent enough time up in the Lakes in my life to know that clarity like this doesn't happen too often... Any chance you are planning a trip up Melbreak anytime soon? The view up the Buttermeer valley, and towards the coast in the other direction is breathtaking... Gazhiley (talk) 08:55, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It does look pretty spectacular. Haven't got any plans to visit again anytime soon as it's a good 6 hour drive from London, but I'd like to go back in Autumn. I'll keep that peak in mind. :-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 19:13, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Excellent detail and commendable lighting. I particularly like the inclusion of the two hikers to give a sense of scale. --Fir0002 06:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any chance we could get an equirectangular (spherical) projection of this image? This looks cylindrical, spherical would work better in the Panoramaviewer. --Dschwen 19:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Very good quality, high resolution and breathtaking view. Andrew18 @ 15:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Helvellyn Striding Edge 360 Panorama, Lake District - June 09.jpg --wadester16 14:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Helvellyn_Striding_Edge_360_Panorama,_Lake_District_-_June_09.jpg&oldid=1208334054"