Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Painted Hills

Painted Hills

Original - Painted Hills is a part of the John Day Fossil Beds National Monument, located in eastern Oregon. The different colors of the hillside correspond to different layers of ash from early Cascade Mountain volcanoes and sedimentary rock deposited when the area was an ancient floodplain. As the Cascades matured, a rain shadow was formed that drastically changed the climate from very warm and wet to arid.

Alternate

Reason

Certainly a FP worthy subject, did I do it justice?

Articles this image appears in

Painted Hills, John Day Fossil Beds National Monument

Creator

User:Cacophony

• Support as nominator Cacophony (talk) 08:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support Unfortunately, to really appreciate this image you must see it at full-size, and it therefore lacks an initial "wow factor." Also, ideally the sky would be better. Still, I like it enough, and now I'm going to check out the article for Painted Hills, so it's effective in that regard. faithless (^speak) 11:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Having been to Arizona, I know that lighting in the desert is usually rather more harsh than this implies. Was this taken near sunset/sunrise, or should the brightness be upped a tad? (Or does my experience of Arizona simply not apply to Oregon?) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 13:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

It was taken towards dusk, but there was a lot of overcast. Normally the lighting there is very harsh as well. You are right about the brightness though, I uploaded a newer version but may have gone too far. Fir always does a good job, maybe he could help? Cacophony (talk) 18:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support orginal. Since the image was taken on a overcast day around dusk, the original looks to have realistic color balance to me. Oppose edit 1; it doesn't look like the lighting is harsh, it instead looks somewhat fake. - Enuja (talk) 19:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
• The composition looks a bit bland. Do you have any with any with some foreground features or some more three-dimensionality?? -

Fcb981(talk:contribs) 20:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• • Oppose Regretfully, but I feel like the composition leaves the image very 2 dimensional with little in the way of scale. Light isn't Ideal either. Good sharpness but there are more important considerations IMO. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 15:48, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support per Enuja. Dr. eXtreme 13:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Great subject, but lighting is going to be crucial to do it justice. Some sunlight would have helped immensely. As it is, it's flat and lacks vibrancy; the edit just looks oversaturated. Both are noticeably over-sharpened (halo along the mountain/sky divide) and one last minor niggle: there's no real indication of scale. --mikaul^talk 15:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support Original Per Faithless.--CPacker (talk) 06:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This nomination has been moved to "Older nominations requiring additional input from users" as consensus is impossible to determine without additional input from the users who have participated in the discussion. This is because there was more than one edit of the image available, and no clear preference for one of them has been determined. If you voted on these images previously, please update your vote to specify which edit(s) you are supporting. microchip08 ^{Find my secret page!} Talk to me! I feel lonely! 17:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose, lighting problems and many of the new panoramas are coming in with better resolutions. gren グレン 04:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

No consensus MER-C 08:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)