Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:CumulonimbusMexicoP1.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:CumulonimbusMexicoP1.jpg, not featured[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Nov 2017 at 02:45:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena
Info created by User:Cvmontuy - uploaded by Cvmontuy - nominated by -- Cvmontuy (talk) 02:45, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Support -- Cvmontuy (talk) 02:45, 23 October 2017 (UTC)- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:18, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
- Support Those are some pretty impressive clouds. -- Thennicke (talk) 05:06, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
- Support - I wasn't thinking FP when I promoted it at QIC, but taking a closer look, I agree that it is. Excellent capture and composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:53, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Comment Can you explain the blue and brown colour tint? Are you looking down on the clouds or across at them? I can't figure out how the clouds could get such deep colour naturally. -- Colin (talk) 06:50, 23 October 2017 (UTC)- Comment And appears to be heavily processed -very soft. Charles (talk) 08:46, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
- Comment The picture was taken from the interior of a commercial flight From Mexico-City to Villahermosa Tabasco, then
- Using Raw therapee
- The overexposed control was moved until some points reach white
- The black control was moved until some points reach black
- Noise was reduced this makes the picture a little bit softer
- Temperature was change from 5024 to 5820 (I just move the control until I get a more pleasent colors)
- Using Gimp
- I separate the channels acording to luminosity, on dark chanel I move the color curve to add more light and more contrast
- I add more contrast to the final picture.
- --Cvmontuy (talk) 09:31, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
- Cvmontuy, when processing clouds, it's very rare that you want any of the pixels to be actually black. If I were you I would make the darkest point in this image a "realistic-looking" dark grey -- Thennicke (talk) 10:28, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Oppose for now. I don't find this realistic. As Thennicke notes, not all scenes have pure white and pure black in them, so it often isn't appropriate to stretch the exposure to these limits -- high key and low key scenes for example. I think the "wow" here is really the artificial over-processing of the cloud contrast, rather than reality. And the blue/brown colours are more likely to be from adjusting temperature and/or artefacts of pushing the contrast too much. -- Colin (talk) 10:40, 23 October 2017 (UTC)- Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:52, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
- Support--Peulle (talk) 10:16, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
- Support Albertus teolog (talk) 13:33, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose I too like to photograph clouds and it is always very tempting to process them just a liiitle bit more since they look so cool then. Just to see what would happen, I took this photo and followed some of your processing described above (The overexposed control was moved until some points reach white. The black control was moved until some points reach black. Plus added some contrast.). I also cropped it so that the curves would not be disturbed by the ground structures. The result came out something like the nominated photo and it looks very cool but hardly natural. To get to the level displayed here, I would have to process much more. Sorry, but I can't support a cloud photo so heavily processed. Bring it back to normal, please. --cart-Talk 16:44, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
- W.carter and Thennicke, thanks for your comments I have uploaded another set of pictures starting with the unprocessed at File:CumulonimbusMexicoRaw2JPG.jpg please let me know if you still think is overprocessed, (the main color difference was due to the temperature for this new version I use 7000), the versions of this files comes from raw file to the processed version using gimp, if you like more the new version should I start a new voting? --Cvmontuy (talk) 19:43, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
- There is a pretty big step between the original and any of the processed versions. The second version is not convincing me either. If you want to nominate another version of this, you could add it as an "Alt version" here on this nomination. I'm sure you've seen how that works before. --cart-Talk 19:53, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose per cart. An interesting idea as far as processing goes, but in this case the clouds are just too chaotic and random for me. Daniel Case (talk) 06:40, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose Agree with D. Case --Mile (talk) 10:33, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination --Cvmontuy (talk) 14:42, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
