Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:View from connors hill panorama.jpg

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Connors Hill Panorama[edit]

The panoramaic view from Connors Hill, near Swifts Creek, Victoria showing typical bushland on the hills and cleared pasture for cattle grazing

Lovely view from Connors Hill. For those that are interested, this is the view Barry Heard talks about in his book "Well Done Those Men".

  • Support Self Nom. --Fir0002 00:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Love it. Support. Zafiroblue05 01:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support -- breathtaking photo, although it isn't very important to illustrating article. Dylan 03:41, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Strange colours (perhaps it's sunset but I still dislike the colours), blown out sky (but the focus of this pic is amazing) - Adrian Pingstone 07:32, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whats with the movie look? You've got strange colors down in Swifts Creek. --Dschwen 07:55, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I really can't see what you mean by "movie look"? As to strange colors, you can hardly make a generalization like that - it was just very unusual lighting. Pretty interesting comment though when compared to yours on the commons --Fir0002 05:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. It is a stunning picture, and as such I respect it when voting on commons. But en:FPC is not commons:FPC, it has different standards. So it should be no surprise to you when I question the factual accuracy of the picture on this page. Or when I highly doubt its encyclopedic value for that matter... --Dschwen 20:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Surreal colors. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-01-27 07:56
  • Oppose Sharpness and resolution is great, color is "interesting", but the totally blown-out sky doesn't get my vote, thus oppose. --Janke | Talk 07:59, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I think the colors are this picture's strong point. - JPM | 08:01, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I think some people take the rule about pictures not having any pure white on them too literally. It's not set in stone, and there are legitimate cases when it's perfectly natural to have parts of the sky blown-out. Counter-lighted picture like this is a good example. What's important is the overall impression that the photo leaves, not what that "Learn Digital Photography" book says about what all landscapes should look like :-) Eyesclosed 08:19, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • We are talking here about Featured Pic not Any Pic so blown out sky does matter (to me). How can it be a first class pic with areas of the sky glaring white? - Adrian Pingstone 08:41, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • What exactly is wrong with glaring white, who said a first-class pic can't have any? I have certainly seen the clouds bright enough so that I'm not able to see any details on them in nature, and darn, it was beautiful! Eyesclosed 08:48, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I guess we disagree because we have different standards of "perfection" that we're looking for in a Featured Pic. So let's just agree to disagree! - Adrian Pingstone 16:59, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. White skies may be beautiful sometimes, but in this case it highlights the image artefacts in the sky. - Mgm|(talk) 09:40, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. - Good stuff. Alr 15:32, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. the blown sky matters to me too. Sometimes it blends in well and isn't noticable, but it really doesn't in this case. Otherwise its a pretty but unmemorable scene to me. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 18:40, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Neutral I love the picture and I'm truly impressed by the focus and the stitching but I don't think the encyclopaedic contribution amounts to much. I've looked at the three articles you added it to, and I'm not even convinced that it's a desirable addition to any of them let alone an outstanding one. ~ Veledan • Talk 20:10, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • At the very least, I think it fits fine on hill. As a side note, the fact that we have nothing more on hill is a bit of shame. (Not as bad as the fact that Moral responsibility didn't exist until the Siegenthaler controversy, but still.) And it does appear to be bushland, doesn't it? Zafiroblue05 20:56, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've changed my vote to neutral and I apologise for being a bit harsh. This would be a decent addition to Hill if it were a real article but it's not even a stub. ~ Veledan • Talk 17:32, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I like it. chowells 21:13, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Very dramatic with a cinema-like quality. SteveHopson 01:09, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I think it captures the mood perfectly, which is hard to do with this type of picture.--Ali K 04:44, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support Very interesting colors (almost movie-like), and overall very dramatic which adds some mood to the photo. There are some artifacts in the white sky but they can be edited out digitally. However, the encyclopedic value is not much. --Every1blowz 08:18, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Artistically it's lovely and I think there's tremendous encyclopedic value in seeing what a place that I'll likely never visit looks like. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 09:32, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support I like it very much but the colours are somehow odd Eteru 09:44, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Beautiful. Mike1024 (t/c) 10:18, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Amazing. Forever young 11:30, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Beautiful. Andrew18 @ 15:13, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Lorax 01:18, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support gren グレン ? 08:02, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support. It's quite nice, and I get a real feel for the place, but I'm not entirely confident about its encyclopedic value; I would usually oppose due to the blown out sky, but the rest of it is quite pretty. enochlau (talk) 14:09, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- Chris 73 | Talk 15:18, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support — Breathtaking. deeptrivia (talk) 01:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I think it looks fantastic. Staxringold 13:54, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Samsara contrib talk 13:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Beautiful. - Darwinek 22:27, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and put on the Main Page - Oh my greek gods that is eye catching.--God of War 04:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Love it - its worth making an article just for this beauty.Pschemp | Talk 07:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I already voted support above. I just wondered if anyone else thought that this looked almost like a shot of the Okavango Delta region of the Kalahari desert or the Serengeti or something? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The contrast between the light of some of the clouds and the darkness on some of the mountains is astounding. Tokugawapants 00:33, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Great! Tvaughn05e (Talk)(Contribs) 02:48, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Kudos to the photographer. Adrian Lamo ·· 12:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. YE GODS! It makes me want to shag a tree with pure joy in my heart! Me loins... --PistolPower 18:41, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. It's so beautiful it chokes me up. The Singing Badger 23:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Looks wonderful, very striking and attractive - • | Đܧ§§Ť | • T | C 12:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Promoted Image:View from connors hill panorama.jpg Raven4x4x 04:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Image:View_from_connors_hill_panorama.jpg&oldid=1148860339"