Wikipedia:Picture peer review/Atmospheric thermocline
Atmospheric thermocline[edit]
At 11:33 AM, 29 June 2012 local time, a fascinating atmospheric occurrence was pointed out to me. I grabbed my camera and took a shot. Since the wikipedia articles needed some better images on the subject, it seems to have encyclopedic value.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:47, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
- Articles this image appears in
- Inversion (meteorology)
Thermocline
Planetary boundary layer
- Creator
- TonyTheTiger
- Suggested by
- TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:47, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
- Comments
- Interesting atmospheric effect, big issues with the picture is the horizon isn't level with the image, and the sunny part of the sky is blown out, and the dark part is too dark, the last too might be able to be overlooked if the horizon is corrected. It's possible that this could be a FP with adjustments, it all really boils down to EV, is this image the best image for these articles we have? That's a little subjective of a criteria, but if this image is an accurate and important illustration of a thermocline (I don't know much about atmospheric science) then I'd say the article with the most EV is Thermocline and that should be listed first in the FP nomination, seconded by Planetary boundary layer and last Inversion (meteorology) which by it's use in the article indicates it's not contributing much being in a block of images, almost gallery like. — raekyt 15:12, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
- The center of the image is the clouds about a half mile away. The sunny part of the horizon is several miles away. In terms of level horizon, I assume you are talking about the line between Lake Michigan and the sunny part of the horizon being sloped upwards. Is this correct? In terms of EV, I moved the image into a more prominent position in the Inversion (meteorology) article. That is the most important subject in the caption. The atmospheric thermocline is second fiddle to the aquatic one. I think this is the best picture in each article it is in. I forgot to order the articles by EV.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:11, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
- Ya I mean the horizon for the lake, it's clearly not level and that's USUALLY a pretty big sticking point for FP nominations, most people will point it out if it sticks out like a sore thumb, which I feel this one does. It's pretty easy correction to make in Photoshop, I can fix it for you if you want or can't. Let me know. The EV claim for FP's is always a big one to make sure you make it abundantly clear how the image's EV is for the articles, so ordering is important, and making sure it's placed in the best areas of the article. Articles with LOTS of pictures it needs to be clear that it's the best to illustrate the subject out of the bunch. Just some general rules-of-thumb to keep in mind for EV. — raekyt 20:54, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
- I thought about making alterations or posting the picture au naturel. When I shot it, I took 9 shots and it was raining heavily just minutes later. A friend pointed out the impending storm and told me to try to practice with my new camera. I popped out the screens in my window and took 9 shots. There were only two that had enough things aligned correctly and in focus to submit. This one has the central buildings close to upright. I made no alterations before posting. I was actually expecting more complaints about the building on the left than the horizon. P.S. I am on the 7th floor so I am about 60 ft above grade and grade is about 10 ft above the level of the surface of Lake Michigan. I imagine some mathematical photographers who know more about the curvature of the surface of the earth can estimate how far away the point on the horizon is where the lake is no longer visible. Also, I am about 400-500 meters from the twin towers in the picture. If you want to adjust the horizon and/or the image on the left, that would be fine, but we must not distort the atmospheric perspective. That is what the image is about.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:29, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
- I uploaded a modified version, let me know what you think, tried to keep the buildings mostly correct and correct the horizon as much as I can at same time... — raekyt 11:23, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
- I am surprised that you uploaded over the original. Should I take this to FPC?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:14, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
- If it was a FPC nomination already I'd of uploaded another version, but as it is, not even nominated yet, probably isn't a problem with uploading over the original, it could be reverted if someone disagrees with the change, I guess. Probably worth giving it a go at FPC, I'd say. — raekyt 19:22, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
- I am surprised that you uploaded over the original. Should I take this to FPC?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:14, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
- I uploaded a modified version, let me know what you think, tried to keep the buildings mostly correct and correct the horizon as much as I can at same time... — raekyt 11:23, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
- I thought about making alterations or posting the picture au naturel. When I shot it, I took 9 shots and it was raining heavily just minutes later. A friend pointed out the impending storm and told me to try to practice with my new camera. I popped out the screens in my window and took 9 shots. There were only two that had enough things aligned correctly and in focus to submit. This one has the central buildings close to upright. I made no alterations before posting. I was actually expecting more complaints about the building on the left than the horizon. P.S. I am on the 7th floor so I am about 60 ft above grade and grade is about 10 ft above the level of the surface of Lake Michigan. I imagine some mathematical photographers who know more about the curvature of the surface of the earth can estimate how far away the point on the horizon is where the lake is no longer visible. Also, I am about 400-500 meters from the twin towers in the picture. If you want to adjust the horizon and/or the image on the left, that would be fine, but we must not distort the atmospheric perspective. That is what the image is about.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:29, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
- Ya I mean the horizon for the lake, it's clearly not level and that's USUALLY a pretty big sticking point for FP nominations, most people will point it out if it sticks out like a sore thumb, which I feel this one does. It's pretty easy correction to make in Photoshop, I can fix it for you if you want or can't. Let me know. The EV claim for FP's is always a big one to make sure you make it abundantly clear how the image's EV is for the articles, so ordering is important, and making sure it's placed in the best areas of the article. Articles with LOTS of pictures it needs to be clear that it's the best to illustrate the subject out of the bunch. Just some general rules-of-thumb to keep in mind for EV. — raekyt 20:54, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
- The center of the image is the clouds about a half mile away. The sunny part of the horizon is several miles away. In terms of level horizon, I assume you are talking about the line between Lake Michigan and the sunny part of the horizon being sloped upwards. Is this correct? In terms of EV, I moved the image into a more prominent position in the Inversion (meteorology) article. That is the most important subject in the caption. The atmospheric thermocline is second fiddle to the aquatic one. I think this is the best picture in each article it is in. I forgot to order the articles by EV.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:11, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
- I have opened Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Atmospheric thermocline.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:59, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
- Seconder