Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Zion Angels Landing

Zion Angels Landing

Created by

. Many other great shots are created by the same photographer is well.

• Nominate and support. - antilived ^{T | C} 02:17, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Amazing...«LordViD» 03:28, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nomination... I can't find the words to describe it! ~MDD4696 07:09, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• The valley appears a little too dark to me, but it may be my monitor: I'm using a different one than I usually do. If others have no problems with darkness, then support - a stunning picture. Zafiroblue05 07:14, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, although I would prefer it a little bit less saturated to give it a more natural look. Glaurung 07:34, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose -a little too dark (even allowing for the sunset), strange colours (again , allowing for the sunset), not great focus. Sorry to seem so negative - Adrian Pingstone 08:58, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • What image are you looking at? ;) What do you mean a little too dark even allowing for the sunset? Sunsets almost always have bright skies and very dark foreground shadows due to the angle of the light. The scene is pretty well balanced under the circumstances, due to the use of the ND filter. It would look completely fake if the valley shadows were lifted up any more than they already do. Also, the focus is fine. It is actually a panorama of three 6 megapixel images taken with a Canon 10D and stitched vertically. With some overlap, that means around 12 megapixels. It just doesn't look at all blurry to me. Finally, the colours are reasonably natural - a warming filter was applied to the sky so the colours are slightly 'rose-tinted' so to speak, but aside from that, the colours look fine to me. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 23:31, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm looking at your Zion Angels image, of course! Yes, the focus is fine, I removed the focus comment on a previous edit so I can't understand why it's still there. I stand on my colour and darkness comments because I still see an unnatural look that is impossible to explain in words. Be assured my comments are genuine and considered. But what does all this matter , I see you have support from everyone else at my time of writing this :-) Adrian Pingstone 21:47, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• User:Vanderdecken/Support. Great - looks almost like it's been 3D computer rendered, such vibrant colours and caught with the perfect degree of natural light. —Vanderdecken∴∫ξφ 10:24, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• User:Kilo-Lima/Support So real; it looks fake! --Kilo-Lima 13:34, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Nice! --Janke | Talk 17:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, impressive. - Mgm|^(talk) 19:41, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, great composition. Phoenix2 02:13, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Like the colors and balanced exposure. Great Picture. --Dschwen 16:12, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Beautiful image. Denni ☯ 20:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- Chris 73 | Talk 14:12, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. It looks like the painted backdrop for a bad western. Mark¹ 21:35, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Beauticious. Cobra 09:08, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• User:Rogerd/Support Great image --rogerd 22:36, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Nice. Camerafiend 16:26, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, of course. I would prefer a version with a lower JPEG compression, as there are some visible artifacts, especially in the clouds and in the clouds/mountain transition (zoom in to see them clearly).--
  * 02:47, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --TomStar81 08:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Incredible picture. --Ironchef8000 21:30, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral I thought for a while on this one but couldn't decide either way. It's a good photo because of the difficulty of the capture (getting the nice exposure), but I agree with Mark¹, it's oversaturated and looks fake. I would upload an edit but with your response to my other edits I think I'll leave it up to you. --Fir0002 07:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you responding to me? ;) I didn't submit this photo for FPC so I guess you should be talking to someone else. But I agree that it could do with some adjustment. I could go back to the original images but I'm not at my usual computer right now and that sort of thing is difficult right now. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 00:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've uploaded an adjusted version. Please tell me what you think. --antilived ^{T | C} 02:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd support it - It is slightly desaturated without losing the sunset colours that the original has. It seems to have come too late in the FPC process though.... thanks anyway. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 05:39, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, great image. Thryduulf 16:58, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. enochlau (talk) 15:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Zion angels landing view.jpg Raven4x4x 05:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]