Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Shelf cloud pano oct07.jpg

Shelf Cloud

 * Reason:An interesting and unusual cloud formation with good technical quality
 * Articles this image appears in:Arcus cloud
 * Creator:Fir0002

Support (edit 3) Nice shot. —Krm500 (Communicate!) 04:57, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Edit 3 as nominator --Fir0002 12:27, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Just an IMO, but i think the "Details Enhancer" or whatever its called in the program you used is cranked a bit high on the HDR, any chance of toning it down a bit to reduce the haloing? Noodle snacks (talk) 12:46, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The program I used was Tufuse, and as far as I know (admittidly I haven't used the program much) there aren't any settings... However personally I can't really see any significant haloes - can you point out which areas are of concern? --Fir0002 09:31, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Interesting and having high educational value. But the far right on the top, the "dark dot" in the sky looks smeared.--Caspian blue 15:01, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Support edit 1 or 3 --Caspian blue 17:06, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment could use a better caption... and, is this a very good representation of a shelf cloud? gren グレン 14:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 *  Weak Oppose Support Edit 1 or 3 Nice scene but it looks and feels overprocessed. I really doubt that it actually appeared like this to the naked eye - if the HDR has enhanced the contrast etc. beyond how it would typically appear then there needs to be a clear reason for doing so AND it needs to me made clear or enc is diminished. Mfield (talk) 17:21, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll post a version without HDR processing for comparison in the next day or so. However one significant feature of the HDR version (aside from an enhanced tonal range) is that the underside of the clouds is shown distinctly (cf. Image:Thunderstorm panorama.jpg) --Fir0002 09:31, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok here are low res versions: normal exposure, under exposure. If you prefer these I'll upload a higher res version (perhaps with some highlight/shadow recovery as appropriate - personally I like the HDR version) --Fir0002 02:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think the normal exposure has adequate detail in the cloud and the underexposure feels right for how the lighting would appear with such a large cloud. Obviously only you know exactly how it looked to the eye, but the HDR feels too bright and unnatural. Maybe a PS manual masked blend instead of Tufuse would result in a more natural looking end product. I certainly wouldn't expect to see that much color and contrast with such a large amount of (subject and other) cloud in the sky. Mfield (talk) 02:36, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: The original looks somewhat faked, the alternative is too bland. If you can get a version which is something between these two extremes, I'd gladly support. --Janke | Talk 09:08, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem - I'll get something done by tomorrow --Fir0002 10:05, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Pretty much what I am after as well with my comment above too. The HDR looks good but the tone mapping is such that the haloing between the right hand hill top and sky looks very unrealistic. Could you try creating the .hdr with tufuse (since i am guessing that will do them from panoramas) then if you have it photomatix for the tone mapping (which'd more control over things)? I'd recommend setting the black and white points to 0% if you do use photomatix then adjusting with curves in photoshop later - not doing so tends to blow highlights in photomatix in my experiance. I usually use PTGUI to stitch HDR panoramas and have had success with that (but it doesn't do tone mapping as well as photomatix does). Noodle snacks (talk) 03:17, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Let me know what you think of the above versions... --Fir0002 07:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Edits 1 and 3 look more realistic to me than the others, maybe its a psychological thing where the brain is used to knowing that clouds aren't sharp and move and consequently the clouds in the other edits that appear sharper and more contrasty jar with it? Mfield (talk) 04:36, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Edit 3/4 - Added an edit of 3 to add confusion to the matter. The new HDR is better than the old one from a realism and haloing point of view but I felt the levels needed a little tweaking Noodle snacks (talk) 02:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah personally I like your edit, but in light of Janke's and Mfield's comments I thought it best to keep it as natural as possible - quite possibly at the expense of visual appeal --Fir0002 04:52, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Support edit three Looks the most natural. E1 does too, but I like E3 better.  Spencer T♦C 02:57, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

MER-C 06:59, 27 November 2008 (UTC)