Ok I hear you guys. Not sure how to withdraw a nomination over here as this is my first submission, but I can see which way the wind is blowing here. Thanks for your input and this can be withdrawn/closed so as to waste as little editor time as possible. — Insertcleverphrasehere(or here) 20:51, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth I attempted to recover the highlights but they're completely blown out, so it isn't possible. Sorry. nagualdesign 05:38, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's awkward with water because reducing the shutter speed or aperture necessarily affects the quality of the image. Not being able to see the screen easily in full sun doesn't help either. I always take bracketed shots then see what I've got when I get home. It's great that these smartphone cameras can take photos at ISO 32 (my Canon only goes down to ISO 100) but I don't suppose it will go any lower. The solution is to use a neutral-density filter.linknagualdesign 06:08, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nagualdesign It looks like this problem isn't a new one for photographers attempting to catch a photo of Wainui falls on a sunny day. It is surprising how little the falls have changed in over 100 years. Are the FA criteria graded the same for old historical photos such as this one? Obviously this one is blown in the highlights too, but for the time it is probably a very good image. I can get a very hi-res scan for about $20 from the Nelson Provincial Museum if you think it is worth it. I could also request this photograph which is of the Wainui River along the track up to Wainui Falls (although there probably wasn't a track in those days), it isn't as over exposed. Both of these photos are currently added to the Wainui Falls article and give valuable historical context, so they have EV. What do you think? — Insertcleverphrasehere(or here) 01:01, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I know more about photography than I do about the ins and outs of Featured Picture candidates, but perhaps someone else can answer your questions. nagualdesign 01:09, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
From the low-res version on Commons, there looks to be some detail in there. Might be worth it. Can't guarantee it, though. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 09:39, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
