Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Pyrocumulus clouds

Pyrocumulus clouds

Reason: Buy one stunning shot of an unusual and interesting weather phenomenon, get an incredible landscape of a national park for free!
Articles this image appears in: Pyrocumulus cloud
Creator: Mbz1

Support as nominator --T 06:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak Support Stunning, if surreal image, however I am sure the colouring of the sky above the cloud formation is not accurate - above looks very very dark, almost too dark as if the colour settings of this picture have been adjusted... Plus coulds look orange? Will change to full support if anyone can explain and verify that this is the true colours... Thanks... Gazhiley (talk) 10:44, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you read the article: These clouds are clouds created by a major forest fire: They gain that colour because of the ash and smoke in them. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 200 FCs served} 19:40, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The sky is definitely very dark though. It looks like a polariser was used but even then, it seems too dark to be just that. The author of this image has a habit of overprocessing her photos, rendering them interesting and punchy but unrealistically presented. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 21:07, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Was this reproduced or downsized at all, it's way too dark for my taste, and this leaves me to wonder why? ceranthor 11:16, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Beautiful and high EV. To me it looked like the darkness was because of the smoke from the fire. — Jake Wartenberg 21:13, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support Difficult to oppose such a dramatic image with such high EV. Slightly heavy-handed filtering (but it has brought out the subject very well) slightly pointless foreground (but the width is necessary & good) not tremendously sharp (but not poorly-defined either) I think it's a worthy FP, on balance. --mikaul^talk 22:34, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This picture has been filtered, I should say too much. On the other hand changing that I-totally-faked-my-sky effect will reduce a lot the attention over the clouds and sky. I suggest cropping a good deal from below (almost before the woods) while leaving the sky that way. The reason is that in this picture the viewer is attracted both to the first plane and the clouds. This dichotomy is subconsciously uncomfortable for the viewer. You can see that there are two hard lines in the picture (the horizon and the one right after the foreground and before the woods) that divide the picture in three bands. The first and the third are highlighted in the picture while the middle (the woods) is not. The viewer's attention is split in two. Try now covering with your hand the foreground. All the attention is gathered by the clouds. At this point (after the cropping) I would try the filter of the sky in a more subtle way. The better composition now brings the sky as the point of attention without the need of 'touching' so much the colors. Maybe a little 'touching' is good but if people are noticing it is because it was too much. This is an example that tells us once again that cropping and good composition are far better strategies to get a good picture through edition than filters. Blurring is also quite useful but this picture (I think) doesn't require it. I hope this is useful Frank cheValier on a Pc (talk) 17:17, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Frankche. Very odd filter. Staxringold _talk^contribs 23:43, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Support High EV makes up for technical deficiencies. Makeemlighter (talk) 07:13, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit1 added. --jjron (talk) 15:22, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jjron, do you have access to the original? Could you please also upload an edit cropping from below between the first line of trees and the second? If you have the original more can be done for the colors. It is good to to the filtering after the cropping. Thanks Franklin.vp 16:25, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No I don't sorry. I was just editing off the 'original' version here. If I had the original original (as it were) I would do a less cooked version, as is I was basically just trying to undo some of the possibly excessive work done (as per Diliff's and others comments) - as a side effect, and not necessarily a bad one IMO, I think it brought out a bit more yellow in the clouds. BTW, while I was editing I tried cropping as you suggested but just couldn't make it look good - I see what you're suggesting, but it just made it too long and thin for mine, I ended up basically agreeing with the sentiments Mikaul expressed about the pointless foreground but it being necessary for the width. BTW also tried a minor sharpening, but for mine it brought out excessive noise in the sky. --jjron (talk) 07:01, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Giving a little time for the edit to be considered. --Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 201 FCs served} 00:43, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support per Makeem & Mick. Preference to Edit1. --jjron (talk) 08:06, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit2 added.--jjron (talk) 08:16, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose all Unrealistically overprocessed. Lycaon (talk) 11:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The edits look better to me. I don't really have a preference between them. Makeemlighter (talk) 07:31, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Origional, Oppose Edit One, Neutral on Edit Two I just don't like the massive chunk of land at the bottom of the first two versions, concidering the focus is on clouds. As for the third, I Support it if the clouds naturally look that yellow, but Stongly Oppose if they were yellowed by the photographer, as has been stipulated.
talk) 20:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment What is always surpising to me is how reviewers, who have never seen a phenomenon are talking about it as if they have seen it many times and know what they are talking about. It reminded me how one of my first nomination was opposed and I was advised to use not a fisheye lens that I did, but 17 mm lens here. That image was of fogbow. Fogbows are rare, but few days ago I was lucky to see one and I used my 17 mm to capture it. Of course it did not fit File:Fogbow with 17 mm lens.jpg. The same with pyrocumulus clouds. How do you know what colors they should have been? They could be of a different colors [1] deppending of many things. I have crashed my hard drive, so I have no original image to upload. John, thanks for working on the image! mbz1

~~Neutral~~ I tend to disbelieve unsubstantiated claims on this page that an image has been "over-processed", as personal experience has taught me that these are often untrue. ~~Unfortunately the original photographer can not be contacted, but~~ I am loathe to believe that the colors have been substantially altered in post-processing. I get a "dark sky" result like this all the time when using very fast shutter speeds, as would be required to resolve the details on the very reflective cloud tops in the direct sun. ~~But again, it would be nice to get testimony from the original photographer.~~ -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 02:12, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Change to Support. I guess I should have read the previous comment :-D. A minor scolding to those who dismiss wonderful pictures as the result of "processing". Some people just take damn good pictures. -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 02:19, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, probably the original picture was a "damn good picture" but these clouds are a classical output of enhancing the colours in the picture:the sky with that dark blue, the clouds with the redish-yellow colour the whitening underneath and grainy looking water in the air. The composition of the original is not that great either. In a picture where the subject is the clouds you have a highly attractive foreground. I don't like the cropped version either because the filter applied didn't managed to recover the original. It looks like my shirts when I do the laundry myself, bleached. Franklin.vp 17:46, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Edit1, Weak Support Original and Strong oppose Edit 2 - I guess I'll vote. I just feel that Edit 2 absolutely ruins all artistry in the image, and makes it much less eye-catching. The reprocessing of Edit 1 is reasonable to make the camera's eye better reflect the human. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 204 FCs served} 14:52, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose all Well, I have to oppose because I don't think the image has enough quality yet or could have, since the original is missing. The first posted image has a very distracting foreground. Distracting doesn't mean bad in fact it means that is too good for being there. It is only a mistake of the composition. You know what is the prettiest part of the picture? In the center-right and lower part, the contrast of the green, then yellow and then very green again of the grass; close to that light or pole over there. You have to fight not looking at that place. You can notice the presence of a color filter not just from the unusual colors but also from the look of the clouds when magnified a little. Enhancing the sky makes some very thin parts of the clouds to become more blue and then those that don't look like (visible) drops. (look at the left part of the clouds). Also the white halo under the clouds is very suspicious. For some reason all of my fake skies have this color features. The dark blue of the sky the yellow in the middle-lower part of the clouds and the white halo together with the visible "drops of water". I just noticed in the center it is even more noticeable this phenomenon. Franklin.vp 16:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per above. Appears to have had a great deal of highlight reduction, leaving halos.
talk) 07:58, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Not promoted Consensus is definitely not clear to promote this. --
NYer 13:37, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Pyrocumulus_clouds&oldid=1138156852"