Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Arches Nationalpark primitive trail view to Devils Garden.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Info No over- or underexposure, many details, no tourists, the fin works as a guide for the eye and as a frame for the main aspect, Devils Garden. Own picture, so no support from me. MatthiasKabel 16:28, 3 November 2007 (UTC)- There was no nomination page existing so far, so I just created it and put the nomination here on top. --Flicka 20:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Support The one speck of dust I saw was actually grunge on my monitor. There is a blue 'halo' on the left side of the rock on the left side, but other than that it is very beautiful. I really liked the little sign in the lower right corner -- I think that it is not a place to that is easy to get lost in. -- carol 22:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Question There are three (or four) sticks in the right corner, they are all laying in the same direction. Are they snakes and not sticks or what reason are they all angled the same? -- carol 22:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, there where small areas not covered by the original photos, so I used the clone tool. I shall correct these and possible other points. (Waiting for more comments) MatthiasKabel 07:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- The simmetry of the two hills -- in the thumbnail, it almost looks as if it is your (the viewer) knees and you are seeing the stark reality, the empty vastness which is to be seen there while cloud watching. People seem to be somewhat harsh about those clone errors there. -- carol 23:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, there where small areas not covered by the original photos, so I used the clone tool. I shall correct these and possible other points. (Waiting for more comments) MatthiasKabel 07:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Urban 08:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Oppose It seems to be way overcompressed. It looks good, but feels like a mp3 file at 64 kbps. Come on, 5MB for such a large pano image? Some of my essays (with several illustrations) take up more space than that. Freedom to share 09:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)- Oppose It's full of editing scars: The sky has overexposed bubbles in it, the lower edge has small bits of background showing through the whole way along, the small areas of cloning spreads along about half the lower edge and is clumsily done. Triplicating details in most places, the trunk of the tree in particular. Sorry, might be ok if all this was fixed but not in it's current state. Benjamint 11:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- Question Did anyone above view it at full size? I know some people just look at the semi-thumbnail on the image page. Benjamint 11:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Poor edit, artefacts. Lycaon 15:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose As above --Karelj 22:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose I remember this place :). Try heavily downsampling and see if that improves the sharpness. --Digon3 talk 16:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Technical quality is substandard. It's a shame really, because it's a nice shot otherwise. -- RedCoat 16:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- Info Thanks for your comments, because the first verison has to many flaws, I've uploaded a better version, but AFAIK, this improved version is not valid for further discussion. MatthiasKabel 16:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- You could start a new nomination, but don't forget to mention that it is a new version. -- Cecil 20:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Cecil 20:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
