Cirrus FieldEdited version - bit more cloud detailCirrus Field Color
This image appears in the article
Cirrus cloud. Obviously, it is very representative of what Cirrus clouds look like. I also believe that it perfectly captures the "feel" of a sky full of cirrus clouds, the whispy streams suspended in time forever. I believe it is striking in an Ansel Adams-esque sort of way. Although it looks like it, the image was not heavily edited. Basically all I did was desaturate it and use an 81 warming filter. I have the original full color version, should you wish to see it.
Comment I dislike the black and white version, not as a picture but as an encyclopedia illustration.The colour of the clouds and the colour of the background are important to understanding what it shows. I will support the colour one -
Adrian Pingstone15:53, 10 November 2005 (UTC)reply
Comment:I don't know man, I get the feeling they don't like edited photographs there. Somebody nominated my sakura picture there and it only got one support vote and a whole bunch of opposes. Over there, they seem to have very different standards. Even my Energy Arc, which was unanimously supported here with something like 18 votes, got 2 or 3 opposes!
PiccoloNamek06:05, 12 November 2005 (UTC)reply
Oppose b&w versions, support colour version. I quite like the original b&w one (Fir0002's edit is ok, but looks a little too messy with the extra contrast), but doesn't quite fit my idea of an encyclopedic image; the colour one is attractive and potentially more useful.
Enochlau07:52, 13 November 2005 (UTC)reply
Oppose B&W, Support color The color version has a greater allure to it - I think the color contrast between the blue and green is better than the contrast in the B&W. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Vaeiou (
talk •
contribs) 13:14, 17 November 2005
Oppose- very poor placement in the article (it isn't even the primary picture on the page). It's just stuck into the article in a large gallery section with the somewhat cryptic caption, "Cirrus Clouds, mixed sky". How is this picture adding somthing that the others (all 5 of them) are not? Try Commons or try giving it a better caption and improving its positioning.
BrokenS. I'm Neutral about it now after the new placement and caption.
BrokenS20:39, 23 November 2005 (UTC)reply
Considering that you also took the pic that was on top of the article before your last edit I think I can safely say that I liked that one much better. Artistically the new one is better. But the old one conveys the concept of cirrus clouds better as an encyclopaedic image. Hence Oppose to all versions of this image. --
Dschwen09:04, 23 November 2005 (UTC)reply
Cirrus FieldEdited version - bit more cloud detailCirrus Field Color
This image appears in the article
Cirrus cloud. Obviously, it is very representative of what Cirrus clouds look like. I also believe that it perfectly captures the "feel" of a sky full of cirrus clouds, the whispy streams suspended in time forever. I believe it is striking in an Ansel Adams-esque sort of way. Although it looks like it, the image was not heavily edited. Basically all I did was desaturate it and use an 81 warming filter. I have the original full color version, should you wish to see it.
Comment I dislike the black and white version, not as a picture but as an encyclopedia illustration.The colour of the clouds and the colour of the background are important to understanding what it shows. I will support the colour one -
Adrian Pingstone15:53, 10 November 2005 (UTC)reply
Comment:I don't know man, I get the feeling they don't like edited photographs there. Somebody nominated my sakura picture there and it only got one support vote and a whole bunch of opposes. Over there, they seem to have very different standards. Even my Energy Arc, which was unanimously supported here with something like 18 votes, got 2 or 3 opposes!
PiccoloNamek06:05, 12 November 2005 (UTC)reply
Oppose b&w versions, support colour version. I quite like the original b&w one (Fir0002's edit is ok, but looks a little too messy with the extra contrast), but doesn't quite fit my idea of an encyclopedic image; the colour one is attractive and potentially more useful.
Enochlau07:52, 13 November 2005 (UTC)reply
Oppose B&W, Support color The color version has a greater allure to it - I think the color contrast between the blue and green is better than the contrast in the B&W. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Vaeiou (
talk •
contribs) 13:14, 17 November 2005
Oppose- very poor placement in the article (it isn't even the primary picture on the page). It's just stuck into the article in a large gallery section with the somewhat cryptic caption, "Cirrus Clouds, mixed sky". How is this picture adding somthing that the others (all 5 of them) are not? Try Commons or try giving it a better caption and improving its positioning.
BrokenS. I'm Neutral about it now after the new placement and caption.
BrokenS20:39, 23 November 2005 (UTC)reply
Considering that you also took the pic that was on top of the article before your last edit I think I can safely say that I liked that one much better. Artistically the new one is better. But the old one conveys the concept of cirrus clouds better as an encyclopaedic image. Hence Oppose to all versions of this image. --
Dschwen09:04, 23 November 2005 (UTC)reply