Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Caprock Canyons State Park

Caprock Canyons State Park

Appears in Caprock Canyons State Park and Trailway. Uhmm.. the picture pretty much rocks. It's sharp from the foreground to background.. has some fall color (um, one yellow tree haha). Good color and balance all around, too. No blown highlights, no deep darks.

Nominate and support. - drumguy8800 C T 07:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This suffers a lot from uneven exposure - the shadows at left are soot black, and the right end looks a bit washed out. (Difficult subject, sure!) Also, the right edge is fuzzy in full size. Restitch and some photoshocking for a better result? --Janke | Talk 08:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Right side is washed out, as Janke said. - jlao ⁰ ⁴ 08:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weaker oppose. I still oppose, but at least it's better than before. There is still too much black. - jlao ⁰ ⁴ 08:29, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Agree with the above and also, the hill second from the left is motion blurred. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:10, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I can make out adequate detail in the shadow, however at 100% there is an odd quality to it. It is just not sharp, and it has the illusion of some sort of blur (out of focus, motion) and then having the sharpness artificially increased. Regardless what is causing it, it just isn't as crisp as I would like a FP to be at 100%.--Andrew c 13:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Blurry, not great quality. Also, IMHO, the color burning on the edit is uneven. « amiИa . skyшalkeя (¿Hábleme?) 18:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
totally black pixels at left
I still oppose. The shadows are sooty, because they're severely clipped, look at the amount of 0,0,0 pixels in this histogram. --Janke | Talk 19:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. As above, and too artificial-looking. --Tewy 03:52, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 20:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]