Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Crepuscular rays color.jpg

Crepuscular Rays edit

Jacob's Ladder style crepuscular rays

"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)[reply]
Neutral. Much rather Image:Crep.jpg --Fir0002 02:09, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Oppose. I too would prefer it in colour. Enochlau 05:00, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I support the second one. It's stunning and illustrates the topic well. Enochlau 07:16, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Image:Crep.jpg (the second one). - Mgm|^(talk) 19:18, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support the second image. much better than the first. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 00:31, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support second image. Very spectacular indeed. Raven4x4x 08:32, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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. Tito xd^(?!?) 01:39, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

( + ) Support Crepuscular Rays - great colors/handling of exposure --Fir0002 09:27, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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