Wikipedia:Picture peer review/Panorama of the Flaming Cliffs at sunset
Panorama of the Flaming Cliffs[edit]
One of my finest panoramas. Good quailty, color and contrast. I'm new to this whole Featured pictures stuff, so i'm posting it here first to get some comments.
- Creator
- zoharby
- Comments
- This looks to be very good at image page size - sorry, 12MB is too big for me to download the full size version (I can't see why it needs to be more than 2 - 3MB at that image size). Bigger file sizes seem to make some voters happy though, and the main negative I can see at image page size is that the shadows are pretty heavy. The other concern that I have is that the short article says: "The rock gives off a glowing orange colour, hence the nickname", yet it all looks pretty brownish yellow here - is that a problem, perhaps like nominating an image of Uluru that didn't show up red? --jjron (talk) 10:06, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, I've ran it through some noise cleaning, saved it with a bit more compression, and got it down to 4MB. Played with the levels a bit to make the shadows a bit less deep. Also added a little saturation to give it a more orange look, while still keeping it natural looking. --zoharby (talk) 18:34, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
- I am not so sure more saturation is a good idea. The first version sort of gave me the impression of being a bit over-saturated to begin with. Remember that the goal for featured pictures is ultimately an accurate depiction of reality, not the most asthetically pleasing photograph possible. It does currently give an impression of being turned up to 11. Noodle snacks (talk) 00:54, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
- You're probably right about the saturation. The first version is clearly an accurate depiction of reality, as it was composed from the original pictures that were taken without any 'vivid' camera setting. I put another version, same as last one but without the extra saturation. Do you guys think it's good enough for FPC? --zoharby (talk) 19:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- My gut feeling is that it would be worth nominating, but I wouldn't want to make any guarantees about its success. I still worry about the conflict with the nickname/article description and the image (which is not saying your image is incorrect regarding what you saw, just that it maybe doesn't show the cliffs at their prime). Some of these things just get to the point where you simply give it a try - sometimes you 'win', sometimes you don't. Good luck :-). --jjron (talk) 11:51, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- You're probably right about the saturation. The first version is clearly an accurate depiction of reality, as it was composed from the original pictures that were taken without any 'vivid' camera setting. I put another version, same as last one but without the extra saturation. Do you guys think it's good enough for FPC? --zoharby (talk) 19:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- I am not so sure more saturation is a good idea. The first version sort of gave me the impression of being a bit over-saturated to begin with. Remember that the goal for featured pictures is ultimately an accurate depiction of reality, not the most asthetically pleasing photograph possible. It does currently give an impression of being turned up to 11. Noodle snacks (talk) 00:54, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, I've ran it through some noise cleaning, saved it with a bit more compression, and got it down to 4MB. Played with the levels a bit to make the shadows a bit less deep. Also added a little saturation to give it a more orange look, while still keeping it natural looking. --zoharby (talk) 18:34, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
- Seconder