Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:USA Fort Davis pano TX.jpg

Image:USA Fort Davis pano TX.jpg, not featured

• created, uploaded, and nominated by Dschwen 09:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --Dschwen 09:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
•  Question Why not a 360' image? --The Photographer 14:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  • This shot spans a little over 180° and is taken at one edge of the parading grounds. 360° would have made the aspect ratio more extreme and would have put the sun into view. IMHO such a shot would be less illustrative, as it would have to be taken from the center of the parading ground, yielding a different (worse) perception of the spatial arrangement. --Dschwen 14:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanx Dschwen --The Photographer 20:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

•  Neutral Well done technically and I like the sky, but the compostion doesn't really convey what it is. Looks like a badly kept soccer field. ~ trialsanderrors 17:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Uhm, yeah. That's actually pretty much how it looks in real life. Not like they are still doing any drills there :-). --Dschwen 17:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
•  Comment I like it and would like to support it, however can it be down-sampled a bit? Seems a little bit fuzzy at max (just a height adjustment of say 100-200px). Also, the far right doesn't have a square edge, it looks like the stitching program left it a little jagged. Once that is fixed, I'll support. --Cody.Pope 03:03, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks for spotting the edge, that's fixed. However the downsampling is already done by the mediawiki software, and for special applications the user can do it himself. I tried to scale it down to 1300px height, bit while some parts may be a tad soft other parts loose important detail from downsampling, such as the roof tiles to the left. --Dschwen 06:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
•  Comment - Very nice. Remembers me of good times. But is it possible to fix the tilted houses and columns? If they are fixed with sucess, I would gladly support. --66.36.153.175 17:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
•  Neutral It is a personnal argument but I cannot see the interest of the bottom of the image, and I would see more humans in it, looks like a desert place. --Alipho 22:49, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
  • The bottom is the drill ground. It is a matter of taste, but I guess I could have cropped it slightly more. As for the people just let me say this. Unlike some other contributors I do not believe in photoshopping out people from my pictures. With my pics I intend to represent the reality as I witnessed it as closely as possible. In some nominations the voters demand the removal of people in the frame. Here there just barely weren't any. The site is pretty huge, has indor facilities, and is located in a rural texan town, far away from any big city. So, what should I do about this? --Dschwen 08:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Good idea, but Inpersonal, This very desolate, to see humans close but, does not exist an excellent main object --The Photographer 12:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Sorry, could you please rephrase that, I don't get what you are saying here. --Dschwen 12:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I think what he means its impersonal and desolate without some humans in the picture --Digon3 21:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

•  Support --Lestat 17:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose - camera wasn't fully level, so the horizon is slightly sinuous (highest at left, lowest about a third of the way in from the right edge). Not a lot off, but enough to make the pic look slightly odd - MPF 12:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose ack MPF. The fact that there are no humans doesn't bother me, but the picture needs a good crop. --Digon3 21:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose --Karelj 23:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 2 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 13:23, 17 March 2007 (UTC)