Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Hurricane Katrina Eye
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Hurricane Katrina Eye viewed from Hurricane Hunter
The picture shows a high resolution view of eye in the recent city killer hurricane katrina. The quality of the clouds in the image just stuck out in my mind. After reviewing it a couple of times, I decided to nominate it for fpc.
- Nominate and support. - ZeWrestler Talk 19:10, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
- There is a reflection in the upper left hand area of the photo that really ought to be corrected. 129.108.25.68 19:34, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
- Much better. BTW, the above anon is me; I forgot to log in ealier. TomStar81 01:46, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
-
-
- How about this? I healed it up in Photoshop. Some of the highlights were clipped, I tried to fix that as well.PiccoloNamek 22:14, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
-
- Out of curiosity, what's the link to the NOAANEWS story which uses this image? Or a page that has the image on it? I'd like to send someone a link to it, but I'd rather not link directly to the file. However, their website is tortuous to navigate. Excellent picture, anyway, and I'm not too troubled by the reflection. -Ashley Pomeroy 22:24, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support the edited version TomStar81 02:15, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support second version. I personally wouldn't want to be up in that plane, but it's a spectacular view. Raven4x4x 05:05, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
- Second version is a big improvement, but the sky's still quite grainy. —Cryptic (talk) 05:25, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
- support I tweaked the image a bit more to make it look nicer. --antilived 11:48, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support second version. James F. (talk) 13:00, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support. I think it's the subject matter here that's the key; probably wouldn't have voted support otherwise because the bits of the aircraft visible are distracting. Enochlau 13:23, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Antilived, I think you put a little too much compression on that image. The 8x8 JPEG blocks are visible even in the thumbnail.PiccoloNamek 17:27, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
-
- How about the version I've just uploaded? Is it better? --antilived 08:12, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support. I think the "Hurricane Hunter" probe reaching out towards the eye adds to the drama and understanding. --Surgeonsmate 22:31, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose. artefacts in the clouds. - Mgm|(talk) 09:13, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
Support Amazing that someone could take this pic --Fir0002 07:45, September 6, 2005 (UTC)- Support second now. —Cryptic (talk) 07:51, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. You know what's funny? Photoshop is now being used to create great pictures. Isn't it weird that we have to use PS to make a picture good? The photographer no longer needs to be skilled... everything can be taken care of in processing. Just my thoughts. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 22:06, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
- Reply:I don't think that's fair. Using Photoshop is no different than working in the darkroom. It's just more vertisle. Do you think Ansel Adams' pictures looked as good as they do straight out of the camera? And what if Photoshop is the only way the photographer can realize what is in their imagination?PiccoloNamek 23:20, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
- Well then let them be an artist. Stop having them try and pass off a photoshopped image as a great picture. A picture should be a real, true representation of the subject. Not what the photoshopper wants it to be. Oh well. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 13:37, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
- I disagree. Film photographers have been fixing their photos in the darkroom since photography has first existed, it shouldn't be any different for digital photographers with their "pixelroom". Many of the most commonly used Photoshop techniques have darkroom equivs' such as doding and burning, cloning (spotting), brightness/contrast, etc. Perhaps you just can't get it.PiccoloNamek 14:05, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
- Nah, I get it. I just think there is a huge difference between a darkroom and Photoshop. If you think they are the same, you might be smokin' something. You probably would like to see the entire world computer-generated. Someone could PS the most beautiful mountain view or anything they could imagine... but that does not make it real. I just like the "real world", I guess. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 15:07, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
- I disagree. Film photographers have been fixing their photos in the darkroom since photography has first existed, it shouldn't be any different for digital photographers with their "pixelroom". Many of the most commonly used Photoshop techniques have darkroom equivs' such as doding and burning, cloning (spotting), brightness/contrast, etc. Perhaps you just can't get it.PiccoloNamek 14:05, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
- Well then let them be an artist. Stop having them try and pass off a photoshopped image as a great picture. A picture should be a real, true representation of the subject. Not what the photoshopper wants it to be. Oh well. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 13:37, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
- Reply:I don't think that's fair. Using Photoshop is no different than working in the darkroom. It's just more vertisle. Do you think Ansel Adams' pictures looked as good as they do straight out of the camera? And what if Photoshop is the only way the photographer can realize what is in their imagination?PiccoloNamek 23:20, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
- Support - MPF 16:15, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
- Support (second version) Absolutely stunning pic! -- Chris 73 Talk 07:50, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
- Support: Shows the intensity of a hurricane. Rentastrawberry 01:38, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
- Promoted Image:HurricaneEye.jpg This link is Broken 04:42, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
