Kings Creek in Lassen Volcanic National Park

Reason

The only inside the park panoramic image which shows the landscape up close (I didn't insert it as a scrolling image though)

Articles this image appears in

Lassen Volcanic National Park

Creator

Dschwen

• Support as nominator — Dschwen 16:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC) reply
• Weak Support -it is a nice shot, but the mountains are a bit fuzzy, and the road kind of ruins the photo - Nelro 18:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Which road?! There is no road on the picture. -- Dschwen 18:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Maybe someone forgot to look at the full res version? Debivort 19:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC) reply
      • Sorry, the sand a gravel looks like a road when when you don't zoom in. - Nelro 10:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC) reply
• support Debivort 19:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC) reply
• Support, it's obvious that the photo was digitally adjusted, but it still gets my positive vote.-- Svetovid 22:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • The unprocessed (stitched only) version is available here. -- Dschwen 22:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC) reply
• support edit 1 The sky looks like a volcano just exploded nearby in the first image. Otherwise, it's good.-- Analogue Kid 04:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC) reply
• Support edit 01 - very nice, beautiful landscape. And FYI, a quick map check on the coordinates given shows that there is a road, and it's the Lassen Peak Highway/Volcanic Legacy Scenic Byway. — Vanderdecken∴ ∫ ξ φ 08:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC) reply
  • It's just not visible ob the picture, it's out of frame and occluded by trees, unless you have some fancy CSI enhance techniques ;-) -- Dschwen 10:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Well, from the map, the creek flows north west and the image is taken north of the road facing northwest. I don't think any of the road is in the image, occluded or not. Debivort 01:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC) reply
• The edit introduces a lot of compression artifacts. Could you upload a better version? P.S.: compare to this or that shot with an even darker sky. It was a bright day, and the air was extremely clear (high altitutde and fairly remote location) and had little atmospheric scattering. -- Dschwen 10:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC) reply
  • I always save for wiki at level twelve quality on photoshop. The compression artifacts are brobably a result of the saturation adjustments. and were present in the original but were unnoticable. Later today I'll try a anti noise median in a isolated blue channel with sky selected and see hoe it turns out. - Fcb981 15:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC) reply

  The noise is present on the original, it is not JPEG compression artifacts, I used a noise reduction plugin before downsizing Bleh999 19:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Oppose original zoom in on the sky, there is a lot of noise, also present in the original which hasn't been downsized Bleh999 13:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC) support edit 2 less noisy, better levels, and sharper. Bleh999 13:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC) reply

• Support Wonderful image. ^(H) 15:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Support Edit 1 (my own) I dont see any real gains on three and there looks to be more polorization of the sky there but its subtle. - Fcb981 04:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC) reply

• I liked your curves adjustment, but there is too much noise, using the sky and treetops as a reference point Bleh999 08:39, 2 June 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Fair enough, however no curves adjustment was used. I Originaly considered using the blue channel level adjustment but that would have caused color cast on the entire image. Instead I used Hue/Saturation under the blue mode. Selected about 5 points in the sky and upped the brightness and saturation. I suspect the more pronounced noise came from saturation adjustments. - Fcb981 15:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC) reply
• Weak Support Edit 2 – Cleanest of the three photos. I would have liked the sky to be a continuous band across the top of the picture. Centy – reply• contribs – 20:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Promoted The Sunshine Man 16:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC) reply