Voting period ends on 23 Jan 2012 at 17:52:24 (UTC)
- Reason
- good and nice composition
- Articles in which this image appears
- Etosha pan
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/Natural_phenomena/Others
- Creator
- Alchemist-hp
- Support as nominator -- Alchemist-hp ( talk) 17:52, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- Perhaps a comparison with the
most expensive photo
--
Alchemist-hp (
talk)
17:56, 13 January 2012 (UTC) - Comment the photo needs a caption --
Guerillero |
My Talk
18:17, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- done. -- Alchemist-hp ( talk) 18:29, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose Can't tell where the focus is, possibly due to jpeg artifacting or excessive noise reduction? Looks heavily processed at full size. Good EV, but the image quality is pretty poor.
Clegs (
talk)
10:46, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
- Hi Clegs: if you ask me this really: "Can't tell where the focus is" then here my answers: except for the foreground, "simply all"! Do you read my comments? It is a 300mm telephoto shoot in a hot, very shimmering and dusty air! -- Alchemist-hp ( talk) 11:25, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose I really love the image, but the EV is really not doing it for me. Sorry!
Aaadddaaammm (
talk)
20:10, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
- Hi Aaadddaaammm, an honest (oppose) opinion is OK for me. You don't need to say "sorry", but think about my image description too. This is a typical view of the Etosha pan: a big dry, hot, and empty area. Take also a look to the geo tag on Google maps. -- Alchemist-hp ( talk) 01:31, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
- Support. I like it. Agree that the image at fullsize possibly looks processed and low DOF, but I've seen this effect myself in these type of conditions so will accept Alchemist's description - this actually portrays it quite well. There does look to be some mild artifacting, mainly in the sky, so not sure if it would be worth reprocessing. The other downer is that at article size it loses a bit of punch, and as fourth image down, it gets a bit lost in there. -- jjron ( talk) 15:37, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
- Support The photo gives a good idea of what it the pan looks like from the ground. I think telephoto lenses are underused in landscape photography. The heat haze is to be expected - I can't get a sharp shot at any distance in many situations once things hit 20 degrees with my 500mm here. JJ Harrison ( talk) 01:14, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- Support Intriguing and, in my opinion, high EV. Magister Scienta talk 18:29, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- Weak Oppose Kinda strange that I'm going to completely contradict Clegs but still oppose. I really think it's a good photo, but I can't really tell what it is I'm looking at; the foreground is really all one sees, not the salt pan. Really hurts the EV IMHO. - RunningOnBrains( talk) 08:17, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Support -- Brackenheim ( talk) 18:59, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Support. I this is indeed probably the best way to represent the subject. It is the contrast between foreground and background that gives the image its effectiveness, so, though the photographer could have stood on higher ground and filled the frame with nothing but salt and sky, this seems better both as a representation of the landscape and as a photograph. As for Alchemist's winking reference to Gursky: print it in full clarity at 11 feet wide and we'll talk. Chick Bowen 03:20, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose, per Clegs. Nik the stoned 14:42, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose Per above. It's not a direct picture of the salt pan, and yet it is not a direct picture of the foreground? The main subject being in the background and badly out of focus does not seem to me to have much EV. Dusty777 ( talk) 19:20, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose The image is not conclusive. One could earnestly mistake if for a cliff and the salt pan to be the clouds. Plus there is the OOF thingie, can't really see where the focus lies. Hariya1234 ( talk) 03:47, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Not Promoted -- Jujutacular talk 13:17, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
- 6 / 11.5 = ~52% Jujutacular talk 13:17, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 23 Jan 2012 at 17:52:24 (UTC)
- Reason
- good and nice composition
- Articles in which this image appears
- Etosha pan
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/Natural_phenomena/Others
- Creator
- Alchemist-hp
- Support as nominator -- Alchemist-hp ( talk) 17:52, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- Perhaps a comparison with the
most expensive photo
--
Alchemist-hp (
talk)
17:56, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment the photo needs a caption --
Guerillero |
My Talk
18:17, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- done. -- Alchemist-hp ( talk) 18:29, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose Can't tell where the focus is, possibly due to jpeg artifacting or excessive noise reduction? Looks heavily processed at full size. Good EV, but the image quality is pretty poor.
Clegs (
talk)
10:46, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
- Hi Clegs: if you ask me this really: "Can't tell where the focus is" then here my answers: except for the foreground, "simply all"! Do you read my comments? It is a 300mm telephoto shoot in a hot, very shimmering and dusty air! -- Alchemist-hp ( talk) 11:25, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose I really love the image, but the EV is really not doing it for me. Sorry!
Aaadddaaammm (
talk)
20:10, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
- Hi Aaadddaaammm, an honest (oppose) opinion is OK for me. You don't need to say "sorry", but think about my image description too. This is a typical view of the Etosha pan: a big dry, hot, and empty area. Take also a look to the geo tag on Google maps. -- Alchemist-hp ( talk) 01:31, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
- Support. I like it. Agree that the image at fullsize possibly looks processed and low DOF, but I've seen this effect myself in these type of conditions so will accept Alchemist's description - this actually portrays it quite well. There does look to be some mild artifacting, mainly in the sky, so not sure if it would be worth reprocessing. The other downer is that at article size it loses a bit of punch, and as fourth image down, it gets a bit lost in there. -- jjron ( talk) 15:37, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
- Support The photo gives a good idea of what it the pan looks like from the ground. I think telephoto lenses are underused in landscape photography. The heat haze is to be expected - I can't get a sharp shot at any distance in many situations once things hit 20 degrees with my 500mm here. JJ Harrison ( talk) 01:14, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- Support Intriguing and, in my opinion, high EV. Magister Scienta talk 18:29, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- Weak Oppose Kinda strange that I'm going to completely contradict Clegs but still oppose. I really think it's a good photo, but I can't really tell what it is I'm looking at; the foreground is really all one sees, not the salt pan. Really hurts the EV IMHO. - RunningOnBrains( talk) 08:17, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Support -- Brackenheim ( talk) 18:59, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Support. I this is indeed probably the best way to represent the subject. It is the contrast between foreground and background that gives the image its effectiveness, so, though the photographer could have stood on higher ground and filled the frame with nothing but salt and sky, this seems better both as a representation of the landscape and as a photograph. As for Alchemist's winking reference to Gursky: print it in full clarity at 11 feet wide and we'll talk. Chick Bowen 03:20, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose, per Clegs. Nik the stoned 14:42, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose Per above. It's not a direct picture of the salt pan, and yet it is not a direct picture of the foreground? The main subject being in the background and badly out of focus does not seem to me to have much EV. Dusty777 ( talk) 19:20, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose The image is not conclusive. One could earnestly mistake if for a cliff and the salt pan to be the clouds. Plus there is the OOF thingie, can't really see where the focus lies. Hariya1234 ( talk) 03:47, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Not Promoted -- Jujutacular talk 13:17, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
- 6 / 11.5 = ~52% Jujutacular talk 13:17, 24 January 2012 (UTC)