Sorry, while this is a pretty photo it isn't likely to succeed at FPC. It's too small for starters - while it technically just scrapes into the size limits, bigger is generally expected for landscape type shots. Even for it's size, the mountains which are the subject seem to be a bit soft; it looks like focus is further forward, possibly on that large cactus. Also the colours don't look that realistic to me, which could be a consequence of this having been scanned from a slide/film which sometimes bring out colours differently from digital (or it could be aged, but no date is given). --
jjron (
talk) 19:54, 12 June 2010 (UTC)reply
I disagree with the above. Firstly the image has a dimension that meets or exceeds 1000 pixels, so it is big enough. Secondly, it is a pretty picture, and one with great quality and detail in both the back and foreground. I will definitely support this if you bring it to suggest it as a FPC! --
I′d※<3※Ɵɲɛ (
talk) 05:33, 1 July 2010 (UTC)reply
I'm in agreement with jjron here, I'd oppose on size alone. For a landscape like this, which is generally considered highly reproducible, we expect much higher then minimums. — raeky(
talk |
edits) 18:21, 5 July 2010 (UTC)reply
Sorry, while this is a pretty photo it isn't likely to succeed at FPC. It's too small for starters - while it technically just scrapes into the size limits, bigger is generally expected for landscape type shots. Even for it's size, the mountains which are the subject seem to be a bit soft; it looks like focus is further forward, possibly on that large cactus. Also the colours don't look that realistic to me, which could be a consequence of this having been scanned from a slide/film which sometimes bring out colours differently from digital (or it could be aged, but no date is given). --
jjron (
talk) 19:54, 12 June 2010 (UTC)reply
I disagree with the above. Firstly the image has a dimension that meets or exceeds 1000 pixels, so it is big enough. Secondly, it is a pretty picture, and one with great quality and detail in both the back and foreground. I will definitely support this if you bring it to suggest it as a FPC! --
I′d※<3※Ɵɲɛ (
talk) 05:33, 1 July 2010 (UTC)reply
I'm in agreement with jjron here, I'd oppose on size alone. For a landscape like this, which is generally considered highly reproducible, we expect much higher then minimums. — raeky(
talk |
edits) 18:21, 5 July 2010 (UTC)reply