Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Evolution of a Tornado.jpg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

File:Evolution of a Tornado.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jan 2018 at 06:47:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Evolution of a tornado
  • Unwarned customers will pay 49,99 $ for the wage and material on the website, while they will only pay for the material when informed that the licence is free. This relative wage is lol for me -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:30, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment - I judge it as wanting formally, to my eyes. However, it's certainly interesting. I'm going to cross out my oppose vote because of that, but not because of your point about techniques: Each photo has to stand on its own as a work of art, information or both, and I think it's also fair to judge whether a particular method is more successful in one situation, rather than another. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:42, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment This is a completely fake scenery, that gives the illusion of a tornadoe with 7 centers. We can't devine it's a photomontage without reading the description, contrary to a traditional motion picture where the subjects are usually well delimited and can be isolated on the surface. Then a valid reason to oppose this FPC is simply this scenery doesn't exist, and is certainly impossible. Although it gives the false impression of an incredible phenomena, completely transcendent. How was the sky really, now we know there was 8 pictures inside ? Amazing what we can do on Photoshop. So can we compose a completely unreal landscape, with a bit of blue sky there, some shadows here, a big cloud in the center, and then allege the creation is natural ? Sorry an artificial landscape doesn't match for me with the word of natural. That's my main reason to oppose and even if not share by everyone, I hope this idea is acceptable here -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:16, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • You do comment in bad faith. Not all photos needs to be realistic, and here the photographer doesn't try to deceive anyone (or, unintentionally, only the ones who don't read captions and are allergic to novelty or different approaches) - Benh (talk) 21:57, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I agree with both Colin and Basile and I end up at the side of 'oppose'. Yes, it's a spectacular photo and the technique is well-established and all but I think it goes a bit too far in merging these photos. If only some element in the pic made it very clear (without reading the description) that it was made up from separate images, it would be fine. It would have been easy to keep say the ground from each individual photo, the resulting photo would have had sharp lines at the bottom separating the shots. That would give you a hint of what's going on, but here every effort has been made to blend these pics as seamlessly as possible and the photo can be misinterpreted. In the examples given above, the whisky shot (pardon the pun) is not a photo-merge as stated on the file's page (trick not merge, there is a difference), we are pretty sure we only have one sun and one moon here on Earth and it is clear to most people that the jump from the cliff is not made by a string of cloned women. --cart-Talk 10:34, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmm. The image is titled "Evolution of a Tornado", and I'd expect any usage of it to be similarly captioned. I didn't need to be a meteorologist to work out this was one tornado, photographed multiple times. Is it a requirement to know exactly what you are seeing without a caption? Would you know what this photo is without some help? What about this photo which most certainly "doesn't exist, and is certainly impossible". Do some viewers might think this is a clever group of seven athletes? I think the allegation that the photographer "allege[s] the creation is natural" is dishonest and unfair, Basile, as is the claim it is "completely fake". A complete fake would be where someone replaces the sky in a photo, or superimposes a big moon from another shot. This is no more fake that long exposure photography or flash photography have the ability to create images our eyes would never see. All photography plays with time, shortening it, lengthening it, or slicing it up. The actual scene here, photographed 8 times, is real, and combined into one image. "Natural" would deny any form of photography or manipulation of light that wasn't available to the human eye unaided. Natural is this and unnatural is this. Natural would disallow star trails and most of our deep space images. -- Colin (talk) 12:59, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Impressive image. The fact the the image is not "real" and have been processed does not change this. I assume almost all FP's are processed. The fact that the image does not contain a disclaimer or explanation does not exclude the image from being FP'ed. --Pugilist (talk) 13:03, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Colin convinced me --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:47, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion
  •  Question As this picture is computer-generated, why not nominating it in this particular section Commons:Featured_pictures/Non-photographic_media/Computer-generated ? Same as this File:Photomontage_(Forggensee_Panorama)_-2.jpg was naturaly not added in the FP category Objects#boats. There are 7 tornadoes shown here, and the composition is based on 8 photos. How was the last one used for ? Strange blue sky, over something heavy, which may come from a completely different picture, just fanciful, and pasted over to create an attractive visual effect. But we will probably never know, and may not learn so much about the topic as long as what we see is digitally-manipulated with mysterious original photos. Description says "This prolific supercell went on to produce at least 12 tornadoes and at times had two and even three tornadoes on the ground at once". Seems that the montage was made to give the illusion of seven tordadoes on the ground at once. Making like a fake, since it's said three is possible. Who is not an expert and has never seen a tordano in his garden can very well misinterprete the image, as long as it's not sorted among the other computer-generated works -- Basile Morin (talk) 14:09, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a photo montage like the example you give. (Btw, one can actually generate a multi-exposure image with some Nikon cameras and in the film days it was done by exposing the film more than once). Many of the images at FP are "computer-generated" from multiple photos, including many of mine. As for your comment that the blue sky "may come from a completely different picture" -- you are now actively accusing the photographer of dishonesty. Please stop. -- Colin (talk) 16:32, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Not your first unpleasant comment at my destination, gentleman Colin. See also on this discussion. Then please keep in mind two things ː 1) English is not my mother tongue and I make an extra effort to communicate with everyone here, 2) All your crits come nearly always from your own contradictions. Example on this thread when you start saying my claim for fake is dishonest and unfair, nice, nice. Or three days ago, when you had "better things to do on a Friday evening than arguing about elementary portraiture on the internet", wow, so respectuous, this, sir, sure ǃ I applaud with two hands and take the example right now, perfect teacher ː-) Then please be coherent and polite, sir. My question is legitimate, and as far this picture is a photo-montage, we can suppose anything about the provemance of the 8 images for 7 tornadoes. As I wrote ː "we will probably never know" (and that's certainly truer than the idea that everyone is fair and measured with their manipulations), this means we have no clue to know, and I'm not accusing anyone of dishonesty, just speculating and guessing, as anyone is free to do, and contrary to you, clearly, but here by quote. Thus, please give an end to your innuendo. That's a strange picture that doesn't look like real. It's more "graphic design and photomontage" than "photography", sorry. If we don't agree, that's no problem for me, but that's my feeling, and this feeling is valid. As well my question above is valid too, and my oppose vote valid also. You shows strange manners to disqualify people as soon as they simply give their opinions, sir. I don't know the user who uploaded that file, but what I can see on his profile is that person made only a single edit here, only one upload and nothing more. Image used for a commercial site ː self promotion ? Image rights free here and sold away ː logics ? Excuse, excuse, oh, one more question, one more doubt, and I had to stop, oops -- Basile Morin (talk) 18:12, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Basile, rather than accept that both the title and description explain the photographic effect here, you accuse the photographer of fakery and claim he is alleging this is a natural scene. You suggest the blue sky may have come from another photo. Your speculation, as you call it, is in bad faith. Your whole theme is to discredit this image, and the photographer behind it. I don't find that acceptable. Weingart appears to be open about which of his images are composites and even gives tutorials on how to create some effects. The result is no more "fake" than my own File:Big Ben at sunset - 2014-10-27 17-30.jpg which does not really have lines of colour along Westminster bridge. That's a composite of five 13 second exposures, each of which contains an image that the human eye could not perceive.
  • Now you accuse the photographer of "self promotion" yet the file description page contains no links to their commercial web page nor any mention that the photographer is professional. The image was actually uploaded as part of the "Wiki Science Competition 2017 in the United States". Yes, the problem here, Basile, is you "don't know the photographer" and on the internet that makes you brave enough to insult and discredit him and his work. -- Colin (talk) 22:12, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Basile, if you don't like the image, that's fine, but why on earth are you making this about the photographer, including making many bizarre and incorrect assumptions? The uploader is a photographer who indeed sells his work. There is only one upload because he decide to donate this photo specifically for the Wiki Loves Science initiative. He didn't even include a link to his website, nevermind try to promote his sales. It is a good thing when someone decides the share their photos with Commons, and we should be reinforcing it, not assuming the worst. Again, I have no problem with your objection to featuring the photo, but why not let it just be about the photo? (For the record, I do not know the uploader either. I came across the image because I'm involved with Wiki Loves Science as a volunteer). — Rhododendrites talk |  23:11, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't like the picture, but I respect the artist. I understand the purpose, just it doesn't work for me, as Ikan, Cart and Daniel Case explained more diplomatically. It's a good computer-generated work, IMO, and the illusion of a 7 tordanoes hurrican is excellent. Like a good fake, really well done, that's my impression. Congrats for the manipulation, the artist is skilled and I respect the work for its quality on the technical aspect. So why I don't like the picture ? No wow, very artificial, too complicated, and misleading appearance. My apologies for my speculations concerning the scope, they were perhaps wrong, but they could have been right, since they were just speculations. A question is not a charge, that's just a question which needs answers. Same when I ask "What is still natural in this imaginary scenary ?", I'm not saying the artist is a crook, I'm just guessing it's very far from something natural. That's all the difference -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:55, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have not shown any respect for this artist. Read Just asking questions. Negative speculation in bad faith is just a rhetorical device to damage. Accusing the guy of self promotion, even when several editors point out that you couldn't be more wrong, is not made acceptable by sticking a "?" on the end of the sentence. -- Colin (talk) 08:40, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please vote only on the merits of the photo. Votes should not be used as a way of "getting back" at users or something like that. If you have a problem with someone, please take it to COM:AN where such issues are handled. --cart-Talk 23:49, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • COM:AN is for situations where administrative action (e.g. a block) is required. This is just someone insulting a photographer in order to justify their oppose vote. Many of the admin curators on this site don't think highly of photographers either, so going there would be about as helpful as asking Trump to help settle the gender pay dispute at the BBC. -- Colin (talk) 08:40, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Per Colin. --Harlock81 (talk) 00:17, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Llez (talk) 11:32, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment By a strange coincidence, Jason Weingart has 24 storm photos published in today's Guardian newspaper. The image here was donated to Commons as part of the "Wiki Science Competition 2017 in the United States". -- Colin (talk) 12:10, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  SupportThis is my image. The reason I didn't simply run 8 images across with no blending is because it's been done, countless times. I try to be different when I can, which is tough anymore because of the amount of work out there. The reason 8 images were used for 7 stages of the tornado is because I wanted to include the updraft (the main part of the storm) which had become obscured by low level clouds by the time tornadogenesis started occurring. Certainly wasn't trying to be deceptive. I think the title "Evolution of a Tornado" is description enough. I also have the timelapse the image came from posted on all of my outlets, not hard to find with some minor searching. Beyond actually putting all of the stages together to one image, what you see is pretty true to life, even that blue sky that hung around for a bit. The entire reason I gave away my rights was I thought it would be cool to compete in a science-centered photo contest. I have added a note to my site saying the image is available for free through Wikimedia Commons. Thank you all for the kind words and the nomination. I am honored. No matter what your feelings are about the image or me, it got folks talking and that is what good art does. I take that as a huge compliment. JasonWeingart (talk) 05:18, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Jason, welcome here ǃ Very nice to meet you on Commons, and your explanations are so instructive. Also that video showing where the images come from (between 0:43 and 1:16 as it seems) helps a lot to understand how the whole was mixed together. Maybe a link to this film would be great in the description. But you're definitely an excellent photographer and camera operator. So, first of all, don't be upset if what I'm saying is not to promote your composition here (which looks different from a traditional single shot), as you may have many other supporters in this area who may be so enthusiastic and think differently. Also, most of us are not only votants but also creative photographers who regularly struggle with strong oppositions for submitted works, see for example those interesting pictures somewhat exceptional but however not promoted Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Melon_leaping_on_Awaji_Island_(10504964235).jpg or Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Loojang_05.05.2017_-_Sunset_05.05.2017_copy.jpg Secondly, one of the main reasons I'm not fan of this present piece is that it doesn't ressemble to your other works (from your website). Nearly all of your other creations seem to come from one single shot, whereas this special one is a photoshop montage (technically good). Actually, that's the reason why I suggest above to sort it among the many other (excellent) computer-generated creations. You say you tried to invent something new by merging these pictures, because slicing the image has already been done countless times. This originality is definitely respectable and innovative. Though, is this attempt a success ? In my view, it's impossible to look at this montage without interpreting a supernatural supercomplex tornado. Even if I know it's an educative picture showing the evolution, I think it just feeds an unreal representation of something natural. And that's my main problem with this particular creation. Not sure I would have opposed one of your other "simple shot" beautiful photographs. On the video, it seems that the blue sky is far away from the dense part of the dark cloud. Also I tried to slice this picture in seven vertical frames, to observe the first slice, then it's hard to believe that tornado here on the left is located so close to the luminous area. Saying this just from the video I observed, so this is more a question to you than a statement. Is this first frame sliced on the left really realistic on a scientifical aspect ? But apart from the blue sky, which is another concern, this represention close to "true life" with 7 merged tornadoes on the same visual is still too far from a traditional "natural phenomena picture", usually shot in just one push of the shutter button. Playing with time is not playing with space, then the statement "yes all the featured pictures are digitally-manipulated" is inexact. There's a limit to such manipulations before considering the picture is similarly designed. That's mainly a photoshop creation with big parts assembled, combine and merged, so what you finally see is definitely not "true life". It's more an idea. Anyway, thanks Jason for taking some of your time to talk with us ! Hope to meet you more often here. See some of the great creations we already have on Commons:Featured_pictures/Natural_phenomena -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:00, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Basile, we get that you prefer a simple one-frame image, or a video. There are other forms of photography, which are perfectly respectable and reasonable ways of viewing the world. Good enough even to be entered to a science competition rather than a "Photoshop fakes" competition. Many photos of natural phenomena are the result of processing multiple shots, whether that is focus stacked macro, exposure blended starry sky + landscape, tone mapped sunsets, long exposure light painting, star trails, pretty much all astronomy photos, and on and on. The first time one sees a light painting photo, one may not appreciate that the image was never all there. So this presentation is novel to you and you find it illusory. We got that two days ago. Can we now move on? All photos play with time: it is the defining feature of a photograph vs any other form of visual art. -- Colin (talk) 09:56, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 17 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /PumpkinSky talk 13:12, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Natural phenomena
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Evolution_of_a_Tornado.jpg&oldid=296809118"