Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Painted Cliffs.jpg

Painted Cliffs

Original - Painted Cliffs after sunset, Maria Island, Tasmania, Australia

Edit - auto white balance to remove blue cast, reduce vignette

Edit 2 - spot white balance, reduce vignette

Reason: As a notable geological feature on Maria Island it has the enc in my view. I'm not sure if there are appropriate geology articles present. It is also pretty. The article needs some work but that will probably come tomorrow.
Articles this image appears in: Maria Island
Creator: Noodle snacks

Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 12:56, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support edit. Splendid. Brand[t] 21:37, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To PLW: Much of the vignette was caused by the use of a circuilar polariser (which helped knock back the sky and improve the saturation). The edit doesn't look bad though and I have no particular preference. Noodle snacks (talk) 22:12, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not convinced that edit 1 is preferable. It looks like it's knocked out the blue tone in the sky (looks rather grey and flat to me now) and also made the tone of the white chalky parts of the cliffs look a little yellow, not to mention the coastline on the left looks a bit messed up. The original version is a little cool in WB, but I think it's still the most natural looking (not having been there, I'd leave it up to you to confirm). I'd Weak Oppose Edit 1 and Strong Oppose Edit 2 (looks very oversaturated, particularly in the sky). Ðiliff «» (Talk) 13:33, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Quite lovely. I personally prefer the edit. Sophus Bie ^(talk) 11:39, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support with preference for the first edit. Added an edit (2) to show the effect of reducing the vignetting further. - Peripitus (Talk) 13:04, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support with preference going to edit 1. Nice shot, NS. upstate NYer 01:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support either Durova³⁷¹ 06:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Der Wolf im Wald (talk) 16:27, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment; I think that the date when the photograph was taken should be included in the image description. The camera metadata says; "23 November 2009" - is that correct? Going on your previous submitted images, I think that any discrepancy between dates should be explained in the image description, prior to any possible promotion. Snowman (talk) 12:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Also fixed. This one was correct - different camera body. Noodle snacks (talk) 23:08, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment; I think that the file name is not adequately descriptive. I think that "Maria Island" should appear in the file name for clarity, and possibly also Australia. Snowman (talk) 16:11, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree with the sentiment of your argument, but I think you're taking a overly fundamentalist approach with your voting. The filename is fairly inconsequential to the image's value to articles. As is EXIF data. It's nice if they're extra descriptive, but it is the image page infobox that needs to be fully populated really. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 16:16, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - It may appear pernickety (a caring attention to detail), but I feel that there is no room for complacency for FPs - the finest on the wiki. I think that the guideline that the file name should be descriptive should be one of the fundamental considerations for FPCs. I have changed this a comment, and I hope that it is taken seriously as a technical issue prior to possible FP status. Snowman (talk) 16:23, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support original only as per above comments. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 19:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oooh, comment: I just noticed that there is some strange clone-like artifacting going on. A horizontal strip on the bottom right edge, and a vertical strip on the bottom left edge that reaches all the way up to the coastline. What could have caused that NS? Ðiliff «» (Talk) 19:51, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The photo is a blend between two exposures with a stop or less between them, didn't notice the edges that didn't line up when they were aligned I'm guessing. I'll crop it marginally. Noodle snacks (talk) 23:02, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - ~~If the spirit of this vote is for reasons other than the merits of the image with associated text, then I think this vote should be disregarded.~~ Snowman (talk) 23:40, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Are you implying that my vote might be 'for reasons other than the merits of the image with associated text'? Care to elaborate? That comment seemed to come out of nowhere... are you assuming good faith!? Ðiliff «» (Talk) 23:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I have striken out my comment. Instead, I would ask you to explain your comment; "only as per above comments." I am puzzled by that. Snowman (talk) 23:55, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I was referring to my comments to Noodle Snacks near the top where I mentioned the issues I had with the edits, so I supported the original only. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 23:59, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Thank you for explaining your short comment. You have given a perfectly reasonable explanation. Snowman (talk) 00:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support original or edit 1. --JN 466 12:56, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Painted Cliffs.jpg --Caspian blue 03:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]