Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Colour balance (set)

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Aug 2016 at 06:26:33 (UTC)

Original – 1: Neutral colour balance

Original – 2: Warm colour balance

Original – 3: Cold colour balance

Reason: Highly encyclopedic set of images with good EV for illustrating the concept of colour balance in photography. Has everything you could want: a subject in a neutral-coloured shirt which underscores the differences, a colour pallette so you can see how different colours are affected by colour balance, and different sources of lighting which offer different colour balances.
Articles in which this image appears: Color balance
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Photographic techniques, terms, and equipment
Creator: Alex1ruff

Support as nominator – — Chris Woodrich (talk) 06:26, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ For the first and the second pictures.MITB --- MITB_talk 07:29, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Support stricken, as MITB has not been on Wikipedia for 25 days. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 10:54, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Presumably faked - no-one holds still that long - but faked well. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 07:33, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep. — Chris Woodrich (talk)
Support – Bammesk (talk) 00:38, 27 July 2016 (UTC) withholding vote Bammesk (talk) 01:04, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. To my eye, "neutral" looks colder than "cold". 86.185.218.109 (talk) 02:51, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If I read the source correctly [1], the images (although faked) are uncorrected (i.e. as shot or raw) sensor renderings given neutral, warm, and cold light sources. The designators are not necessarily the temperature of the (rendered) images. The labels given here are misleading!? Bammesk (talk) 03:58, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All labels per the files. I'm out of town ATM, but I'll compare these in Lightroom when I've got acess to it. Crisco 1492 mobile (talk) 05:21, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regretful Oppose because they are indeed faked. The lighting fixtures are photosouped onto the basic image, and don't give the correct distribution of lights and shadows. Leave them out, and fix the "cool" image (should be blueish, not greenish), and I might support. --Janke | Talk 05:35, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Question Which one of these three is nominated? --Rainbow Archer (talk) 17:21, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Rainbow Archer: all 3 images are nominated as a set (see "title" of the nomination and the "reason" section). Bammesk (talk) 03:50, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – per above. Bammesk (talk) 03:50, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support- I cannot see why a faked picture should be opposed. No matter it is faked or filtered, it is still possessing EV. -The Herald (Benison) • ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 15:14, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@The Herald: the fake part is only one part of one user's opinion, read all of the comments above, the images don't represent what the "reason" section of the nomination claims they do. Bammesk (talk) 17:54, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I could care less that they are faked, but the color is way off on image three, as mentioned above, and that just utterly destroys it for me. Cat-five t c ---- 20:45, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. I think this is a great idea for a featured picture set, but I share concerns about the faking and the not-quite-right colours. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:27, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 11:33, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]