Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Mount Washington Cascades.jpg

Image:Mount Washington Cascades.jpg, not featured

•  Info created by Kgrr - uploaded by Kgrr - nominated by Kgrr --Kgrr 20:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --Kgrr 20:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Romary 19:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
•  Support - MPF 20:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose - Quite poor quality, probably due to compression. The image has very little detail, the trees look like a shapeless green mass. and the sky is noisy. Alvesgaspar 22:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The "noise" you see is snow in the air, the moon, and two airplanes.--Kgrr 00:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

• That's not what I mean :). Well, maybe the noise is not vey disturbing. Alvesgaspar 07:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

•  Oppose - Agree with Alvesgaspar on the poor quality image. At 1600x1200 pixels, it's probably scaled down and therefore should have much more detail per pixel. I also think the foreground is a little inappropriate here. Benh 08:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

• It was not scaled-down. The lens on the mid-grade camera is not the greatest, however it was easy to pack for the hike. Would you cut the foreground, making it look more like an aerial shot of the mountain? Help me compose the picture better.Kgrr 17:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

• I said it all, IMO, you should get rid of the foreground. Maybe you can leave it but use it in a better way to make the pic less (as been said) "boring". But that's not the main reason of my oppose. I Agree with Alvesgaspar that you should get a new camera if it can't produce sharper details than this at 1600x1200 pixels. Benh 08:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC).

•  Oppose Boring composition (horizon in middle of picture divides the picture in two parts) and low quality --Simonizer 09:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. But please give me some more precise feedback. I plan to hike up to the same spot again this week and take a higher resolution camera and a tripod to shoot the picture again. Composition: Would you have had less sky and closed in on the mountain? Would you skip the foreground and take a more 'clinical' photo of the mountain? Was the time of the day right - this photo was taken near noon, casting shadows on the mountain. If it's taken later in the evening, the mountain glows with more light, but the three-dimensionality of the mass is lost.Kgrr 17:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

•  Comment - You definitely need a better camera, the image lacks detail and sharpness. Also,the exposure solution might not be the best: with a tripode it should be possible to shoot with a smaller aperture and get a better DOF. Finally, the composition is a lttle boring, like Simonizer said. Try not to center the subjects, both in the foreground and background. About the time of the day, it is difficult to give an opinion not being there. Personnaly, I prefer the evening light because the colours are nicer and the shadows smoother. Alvesgaspar 18:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Alvesgaspar for your feedback. I will shoot it again with my Pentax *ist-DS (a much better camera) and shoot the shot more to the right so that the mountain will have Chester Morse Lake to the right of it. Perhaps, I will shoot it later in the evening so that the light will be more golden. Unfortunately, the mountains will not be snow-frosted because it's spring already.Kgrr 23:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

•  Support - I like it. Hugo.arg 19:20, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose --Karelj 21:37, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured.  Simonizer 07:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)