Oppose I'm sorry to oppose such an appealing photo, but I'm concerned that the clouds take up a fairly small part of a not very high resolution photo. There also seems to be a strange softness that I wouldn't expect - possibly excessive NR, though I wouldn't have thought that this resolution at ISO 100 would need any. Time3000 (talk) 16:09, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Will have to agree with all of the points made by Time3000. It does look like it's had some 'artistic' post processing done. There's no way that amount of vignetting is normal at f/8 either. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs)16:56, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It looks like any other sunset to me; There are stars visible in the dark area, which says to me its not vignetting...I could be wrong, but I don't think I am. Also, note that it is a 30-second exposure, which explains the softness of the landscape and other features. These clouds are typically very faint and seen well after sunset, so these seem like necessary artifacts of the long exposure to me. I can't speak to NR because I'm not sure what that is. The idea that the clouds themselves take up too little of the scene seems like a valid concern, and let me know if I'm wrong on any of my other points, since I am just a beginner at photography and WP:FPC. -RunningOnBrains(talk page)01:14, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support – a bit unfair to shoot this down for PP reasons, isn't it? I can think of quite a few recent promotions with a sight more "creative post-processing" than this one. I'm not sure there was any grad filtering or vignetting here anyway. Exposure would have to be a little "under" to bring the cloud luminance out and if it needed a small contrast boost to display properly it's not exactly what I'd call manipulation... bearing in mind this was shot with a 16mm lens on or about the solstice, I'd say the darkness of the sky is relatively natural. Certainly no more unnatural than the other shots on the article page. Softness of moving detail at 30s exposure is also normal & not NR-related. I'd agree it's a bit of a wide view, yet maybe better as it is aesthetically, hence the weak support. --mikaultalk08:31, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PP was just just one of the reasons for me. As Time3000 mentioned, the actual subject is a small, low res part of the scene and the entire image is already only just large enough to be eligible. I don't think the solstice has anything to do with it. Only the incidence of the sun below the horizon and the present weather conditions should affect the lighting on the sky at dusk - the time of year only affects how fast the sun sets. Bear in mind also that it was 16mm on an APS-C camera, so more like 25mm on a FF camera. Finally, it wasn't softness so much as plasticy lack of texture in the water/sky that we were referring to. It may or may not be, but it just looks a bit like overdone noise reduction. The resolution of the subject is probably alone enough to oppose, but the others just added to my feeling that it's more an artistic shot than encyclopaedic. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs)09:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say the lack of texture is at least partially caused by long exposure. PP isn't an issue for me, but the small size is. No excuse for not using something a bit longer in focal length. Noodle snacks (talk) 09:57, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The reason for the wider view is almost certainly aesthetic, rather than encyclopedic, which is kind of forgivable under the circumstances. This has, I agree, reduced its FP potential. However in my experience midsummer night shots often produce heavily graded skies long after sunset, as the horizon stays remarkably bright almost all night. In a decent dark sky area this can be quite pronounced and, with the "right" exposure/contrast setting, often gives results very like this. I mentioned the solstice as an oblique ref to that and a possible explanation for the apparent heavy post-processing, rather than anything specific to that date. --mikaultalk05:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I made this wide view composition because it comes close(as close as my 16-45mm f4.0 let´s me) to what the human eyes see when looking for/at the nlc´s, there was no "big pp" done( only small level adjustments and sharpness added)certainly no noice reduction and no vignetting added!! ?' - Noctilucent cloudsI´ve made about 20 shots that night and they were all similar. note that it was almost too dark so a 30 sec exp was used. that´s why the water "freezes" and looses it´s sharpness and detail (and also because of the strong wind that night!) I don´t care about any nominations, I just want to tribute to wikipedia as good as I can :-)--Hrald (talk) 21:32, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation. Well I stand corrected. I still think that the size of the clouds is a little small to make it a FP, but it is still a valuable image for Wikipedia and thanks for sharing it! Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs)21:59, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Great picture, i dont agree that the clouds arent the focal point of the image. The brilliance of the scene draws the eyes to the clouds --Childzy ¤ Talk15:43, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
