From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
View of the eyewall of Hurricane Katrina taken on Aug. 28, 2005,

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.

Version 2 Healing in Photoshop

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)

  • 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) reply
  • 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) reply
  • 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
    • 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) reply
        • 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) reply
  • Support - MPF 16:15, 7 September 2005 (UTC) reply
  • 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) reply


From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
View of the eyewall of Hurricane Katrina taken on Aug. 28, 2005,

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.

Version 2 Healing in Photoshop

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)

  • 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) reply
  • 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) reply
  • 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
    • 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) reply
        • 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) reply
  • Support - MPF 16:15, 7 September 2005 (UTC) reply
  • 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) reply



Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook