River of Rocks
This was my old digital snapshot camera's finest hour, and I thought it would be instructive to see how it would do in a review. I've used it to illustrate the article on Hawk Mountain.
- Self-nomination. I'm guessing the main objection would be excessive sharpening (done within the camera) - should that be addressed by further software processing? - Mike Serfas 20:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Comments:
- I doubt it would pass, Bautiful place but the picture is tilted to the right and isn't composed really ENCly. The image quality its self is also so, so. - Fcb981 14:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- The sky is overexposed. I don't think this picture has much chance of passing. -- Digon3 14:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Also, the purported subject of the image, the River of Rocks, is barely visible as two light-colored areas in the background. This might be nice on a hiking guidebook cover but it's not an FP. Daniel Case 13:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Seconder:
River of Rocks
This was my old digital snapshot camera's finest hour, and I thought it would be instructive to see how it would do in a review. I've used it to illustrate the article on Hawk Mountain.
- Self-nomination. I'm guessing the main objection would be excessive sharpening (done within the camera) - should that be addressed by further software processing? - Mike Serfas 20:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Comments:
- I doubt it would pass, Bautiful place but the picture is tilted to the right and isn't composed really ENCly. The image quality its self is also so, so. - Fcb981 14:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- The sky is overexposed. I don't think this picture has much chance of passing. -- Digon3 14:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Also, the purported subject of the image, the River of Rocks, is barely visible as two light-colored areas in the background. This might be nice on a hiking guidebook cover but it's not an FP. Daniel Case 13:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Seconder: