Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Crepuscular Rays

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

[edit] Crepuscular Rays

Jacob's Ladder style crepuscular rays
Enlarge
Jacob's Ladder style crepuscular rays
"Normal" Crepuscular Rays
Enlarge
"Normal" Crepuscular Rays

This image appears in the article Crepuscular rays and I believe it does a wonderful job of showing exactly what Jacob's Ladder style Crepuscular rays look like. It is both scientifically accurate and artistically pleasing. I took this a long time ago with my mom's old Olympus D-460 zoom. I believe it was 3 or 4 pictures assembled together in Panorama Factory.

  • Nominate and support. - PiccoloNamek 10:50, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Neutral. Much rather Image:Crep.jpg --Fir0002 02:09, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I would prefer a colour version, and I wish the rays themselves were a bit more prominent. I agree that Image:Crep.jpg makes a better illustration of the subject. Raven4x4x 03:14, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
I'd like to add the other image to this page, but those aren't Jacob's Ladder rays. JL rays come down from holes in the clouds, not out from behind them. Perhaps I should withdraw this nomination... I wonder, would it be OK to move this page to "Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Crepuscular Rays"? That way I could put the other pic up for consideration. As for color, well, there was no color. The entire sky was covered in nimbostratus clouds except for that one area. :(PiccoloNamek 03:56, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I too would prefer it in colour. Enochlau 05:00, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I support the second one. It's stunning and illustrates the topic well. Enochlau 07:16, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Image:Crep.jpg (the second one). - Mgm|(talk) 19:18, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Support the second image. much better than the first. --ZeWrestler Talk 00:31, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Support second image. Very spectacular indeed. Raven4x4x 08:32, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Support second image. Almost heavenly. Only that I'm a bit concerned about the filename. Could it be renamed to "Crepuscular_rays_color.jpg or something similar? Why? Because it can easily be overwritten by something completely unrelated, (like a 4-letter abbreviation of something) due to its short name. Titoxd(?!?) 01:39, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
I could re-upload the same picture under a different name and just have the old one deleted. And done.PiccoloNamek 06:25, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
  • ( + ) Support Crepuscular Rays - great colors/handling of exposure --Fir0002 09:27, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
About the exposure. This is actually a high dynamic range image, a combination of 5 differently exposed images in this case. I had to adjust the final output so that the darks were dark enough, but not black, and so that the lights were bright enough, but not blown out. I also used a "Digital Velvia" action on it in the end.PiccoloNamek 09:31, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Support both. Second is better, but first is a feature qualityas well. You may want to nominate other pictures from that article, all are stunning. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:19, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose both. While this would be a fine subject for BW photography, the first picture doesn't convey it at all to me. And the second one, in my opinion, does not show the crispness that I am looking for. Not crispness of photography--that's fine--but rather, it doesn't show the sharpness of the phenomenon to the extent that I expect. There have got to be better shots out there. Unschool 02:49, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Crepuscular rays color.jpg Congratulations! Raven4x4x 09:57, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../f/e/a/Wikipedia%7EFeatured_picture_candidates_Crepuscular_Rays_460e.html"