Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Crooked Creek landscape, Ivvavik National Park, YT.jpg
File:Crooked Creek landscape, Ivvavik National Park, YT.jpg, not featured[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jul 2017 at 20:04:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Canada
- Info created by Daniel Case - uploaded by Daniel Case - nominated by Daniel Case -- Daniel Case (talk) 20:04, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Daniel Case (talk) 20:04, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
- Comment In honor of our good neighbors to the north celebrating their 150th today, I have decided to nominate the first of several pictures I believe to be FP quality I took two years ago on a week-and-a-half whitewater-rafting trip down the Firth River in Ivvavik National Park, way up in the northwestern corner of Canada. It is said (and it's very probably true) that fewer people visit Ivvavik, which will hopefully someday soon become part of a World Heritage Site inscription, each year than climb Everest, so for those of you who attach increased value to a nominee because it's a hard picture to get access to to take you can consider this (and it is hard to get access to, as you can only get there by plane or (sometimes) boat).
I hope, whether you support or not, you find these landscapes as interesting to look at as I did to visit and camp out in them. This is a different Arctic, far wilder than the ones we have seen in the many excellent pictures from Arctic Scandinavia nominated by Ximonic and some others here, a place I felt privileged to be and grateful to Parks Canada and the outfitters and guides at Nahanni River Adventures for the opportunity to take these pictures and share them with everyone here. Daniel Case (talk) 20:04, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
- Support Daphne Lantier 20:42, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
- Comment -- Nice landscape but a few (week) dust spots in the sky should be removed and the quite blurry sides need some sharpening.--Ermell (talk) 21:14, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
- OK, how is it now? Daniel Case (talk) 07:14, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
- Support ok now Ezarateesteban 22:21, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
- Mild/moderate Support - I really like this composition. I wish the trees in the middleground were a bit clearer, and I previously thought I might have seen a bit of a magenta tinge on some of them, but I'm mostly seeing a mix of green and brown now, as would be expected. But that's a little pixel-peepish, and the overall picture is great. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:07, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose For me the composition is just not remarkable enough, sorry. It's too flat, and with too much empty sky. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:00, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Oppose Sorry Daniel, a lot of artefacts around the tree-tips due to oversharpening, well visible in full resolution, best visible in the region I annotated, but also elsewhere. The previous version was better in my opinion.--Llez (talk) 08:03, 2 July 2017 (UTC)- Better now, but I think there are still some flaws. So I change to Neutral --Llez (talk) 17:55, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose Nice place, but per opposers (see annotation).--Jebulon (talk) 10:19, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
- Comment per Llez - easy to solve I guess. You'll get my support later. Otherwise it's a great image. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:28, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
- @Ermell, Llez, Jebulon, and Martin Falbisoner: Let the other image (which I am so embarrassed by as to have overwritten it on my hard drive) stand as a warning about what happens when you try to fix this with a brush in the small hours of the morning when you should be going to bed. But at least I learned something ...
I went back to square four, as it were, and started over by using the radial filter and not laying it on so thick. Also, I got rid of some more faint dust spots I saw and tuned up the color to account for the sharpening. Daniel Case (talk) 17:32, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
- As much as I'd like to support this nom for its depiction of a truly remote place - and also for its pleasant composition of course - I can't come to terms with its technical quality. What's going on here? At 100% the image almost looks like a Bob Ross painting. Sorry. ;-) I mean it's totally oversharpened and there's still a lot of artefacts. Maybe you should try and redevelop it from scratch. There's definitely FP potential here. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:46, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
- @Ermell, Llez, Jebulon, and Martin Falbisoner: Let the other image (which I am so embarrassed by as to have overwritten it on my hard drive) stand as a warning about what happens when you try to fix this with a brush in the small hours of the morning when you should be going to bed. But at least I learned something ...
- Support PumpkinSky talk 20:57, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:34, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Wolf im Wald 12:40, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Martin. There's potential, but as it is, it's overprocessed.--Peulle (talk) 14:19, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination I am heartened to read all the support for the composition, and I think when my vacation is over in a few days I will take Martin's suggestion. I have learned a lot more about processing these Arctic landscapes since this one; the more I read here the more I think I'd be better starting completely from scratch. Daniel Case (talk) 18:15, 3 July 2017 (UTC)