Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/UN Patrol Haiti Earthquake

UN Patrol Haiti Earthquake

 * Reason:This image illustrates the United Nations in patrolling Port au Prince in the damage and chaos present immediately after the 2010 Haiti earthquake. The image is striking and well composed, and shows the role of the United Nations, damage apparent, fire, and large numbers of people. It is a particularly dynamic image, as illustrated by the girl running across the road. The very front of the UN Landrover is cut off slightly, but I consider this a minor flaw. It has remained stable in the main article for some time now, and adds value to the timeline of events.
 * Articles in which this image appears:2010 Haiti earthquake, Timeline of relief efforts after the 2010 Haiti earthquake
 * Creator:Marcello Casal Jr/Agencia Brasil


 * Support as nominator --Mostlyharmless (talk) 06:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC) (edit - support for Edit 2.)
 * In my opinion this needs a white balance adjustment. This picture in the Caribbean looks gray like a picture in Europe.  franklin   07:06, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The weather isn't uplifting and sunny enough for you in this photo? ;-) Even the Caribbean gets cloudy days... Besides, a white balance adjustment won't turn a dull grey scene colourful. Perhaps you mean a saturation adjustment. In any case, I think it looks about right. Maybe slightly underexposed if anything. &#208;iliff    «»  (Talk)  07:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it does need an adjustment. This photo taken immediately afterwards shows more light. It was also on 1/250 but f11 rather than f14 - there's an acceptable tradeoff there for depth of field, I think, but I'm not going to object to adjusting white-balance. Mostlyharmless (talk) 09:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)EscombrosBelAir6.jpg
 * Franklin, or the record, Edit 1 seems to have a levels adjustment as well as a white balance adjustment. There are now blown highlights in the sky and I have a suspicion that the white balance is actually incorrect now. Sample the UN vehicle paint. I can't say for sure how 'white' it normally is, but you've taken it from being perfectly grey (on a 5x5 pixel sample on the UN vehicle in the middle of the U) to red/green tinted. &#208;iliff    «»  (Talk)  10:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Added Edit 2 which I think gives the image the improvements it needs. &#208;iliff    «»  (Talk)  12:01, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No idea what GIMP does. I just used an automatic "white balance" tool that GIMP has. By the way, those areas (at least those in the sky) in which there are blown highlights are places in which the original doesn't have detail either (a constant gray c8ccd7). It is very little in both, but it is rue that something manual can give not so many similar colors. The alt was mainly to show how insanely burning the sun is there. By the way, I will try to read what the difference is between level adjustment and white balance adjustment but if I don't find it or I don't understand I will ask you. When you apply the tool in GIMP (the white balance thing), in the history, it calls it "levels".  franklin   14:11, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Support Edit 2. Think this has the improvements needed without the incorrect white balance or blown highlights. &#208;iliff    «»  (Talk)  12:01, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Diliff. A definite improvement on the original, and faithful to the image immediately taken afterwards. Increasing the light levels really draws your eyes down from the sky into the centre, onto the subjects of the photograph. Mostlyharmless (talk) 12:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Edit 2 as per Diliff... Gazhiley (talk) 15:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Support edit 1 per Franklin's finding of a constant grey. No point making a religion of avoiding #fff. Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 16:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, but I prefer Edit2. What I was trying to say is that the detail is there, but it is true the GIMP filter leaved the differences very small in wide areas of the sky. The goal is to be able to see the detail in the sky and in Edit2 this is better while also giving it the brightness that this place probably had.  franklin   16:31, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That's the wrong logic to apply IMO. Franklin and I used two different methods to evaluate the colour balance. His was to let GIMP choose colour balance based on an algorithm to calculate it based on the entire scene (potentially flawed, depending on the colours in the scene). Mine was to use a known white (assuming the UN vehicle is reasonably clean) object. I can only suggest you think carefully about which is more reliable as a source: The entire scene filled with a variety of colours, or a known white/grey object. Not many photographers would use auto white balance when a grey card or equivalent is available. I have a feeling of deja-vu, like we've covered this ground before, it's not about religion, it's just about using the best available tools to get the best result... &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  16:41, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Support edit 2: very interesting picture, good EV, striking subject matter. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 17:31, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Support edit 2. In ref to comments above - in my experience that (use the known/spot white) is a far better method than GIMP/Photoshop's auto functions, particularly when there is such a clear reference in the image Peripitus (Talk) 21:09, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I checked again the original and I was wrong. There is indeed detail there, where the Edits have blown highlights (and I should say that both have, Edit2 certainly less than Edit1). I think I was using the eyedropper wrongly. Now I used a personal trick of burning and dodging until you get visible detail. The original gives this BurnedAlot.jpg, Edit2 gives this Edit2burnedAlot.jpg and Edit1 gives this Edit1burnedAlot.jpg. In the two Edits there are areas that remain uniform. Diliff, I guess it is difficult to conciliate pleasing my need for a bright sun and the little variability of the tones in the sky of the original, but could you please try another attempt stopping before producing blown highlights. Even if I don't find it bright enough. I think I prefer not having the subjective brightness instead of having objective blown highlights.  franklin   22:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * True, I did notice that there was same blown highlights in my edit too, but as you say, a lot less than in your edit. The examples you showed in your comments above show that Edit 2 has just a little patch on the right side of the smoke where it is genuinely blown, but the rest of the colour in the examples is where just one or two colour channels are blown, rather than all three? I would not consider that (1 or 2 channels blown) the same thing as truly blown highlights which are pure white. In any case, I just spent 15-20 minutes cloning out the literally hundreds of dust spots from Edit 2, so what I might try to do tomorrow is blend the non blown patch of sky into Edit 2, rather than start from scratch and re-clone out all the dust spots. Funny how nobody noticed or commented on them (including me) considering how obvious they are when the image is viewed at 100%! So in summary, I'll see if I can blend non-blown sky into that blown patch when I get a chance tomorrow. &#208;iliff    «»  (Talk)  23:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course!! cloning! That gives both brightness and removes blown highlights. I learned something today. And yes, is only the tinny patch on the right the one that needs to be fixed in Edit2.  franklin   23:49, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Support Edit 2-  franklin   13:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

— Mae din \talk 21:20, 20 February 2010 (UTC)