Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Cathedral Range, Victoria

Cathedral Range, Victoria
Voting period ends on 29 Mar 2012 at 11:02:29 (UTC)
 * Reason:It's a high resolution and detailed view of the Cathedral Range ridge, showing the topography and flora of the area. Notably, it also shows both the remnants of the bushfire damage that the area sustained in the 2009 Black Saturday bushfires, and also the subsequent regeneration.
 * Articles in which this image appears:Cathedral Range (Victoria) and Cathedral Range State Park
 * FP category for this image:Featured_pictures/Places/Landscapes
 * Creator:User:Diliff


 * Support as nominator -- &#208;iliff   &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  11:02, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support looks quite nice. Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:33, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Tomer T (talk) 17:35, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - don't like it. Too busy. Can't tell what the focus is. MathewTownsend (talk) 02:01, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose Would have been good with some better lighting conditions. Also it seems that the top RHS region (where the open paddocks are) is tilted - perhaps due to warping from stitching the panorama? --Fir0002 02:54, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Would have been nice to have better lighting but I'm not walking it again in a hurry. Great walk, but the spiny bushes (the green bushes on the right in the foreground) along the ridge seem to have taken advantage after the bushfires - they are a killer for bare arms and legs. ;) As for the tilting, I'm not sure. I noticed it too but I couldn't determine if it was real or an illusion as there is a gradual slope down to the road. I'll have a look at whether it's correctable a bit later on. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  07:53, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose The composition feels a bit odd, per MathewTownsend. And indeed, the lighting leaves something to be desired. Jujutacular (talk) 03:10, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Could you explain a bit more about what you think is wrong with the composition? The subject and focus is obviously the ridge, it's in the centre of the frame. As per any wide panorama, it's fairly all-encompassing, and shows the overall structure of the ridge as well as the foreground and flora, so from my point of view, the focus seems obvious. As for the lighting, I don't think it detracts necessarily. Everything that you need to see is perfectly visible, we don't have to have perfect blue skies in every landscape photo... ;-) &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  10:35, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The focus of the image is not so obvious to me. My eyes seem drawn first to the valley to the right, then to the foreground, then to the valley on the left. If anything, the ridge seems to cut the image in half, making the composition feeling a bit unsettled to me. However, maybe this is just a quirk of my perception! I definitely wouldn't oppose over the lighting alone. I'm retracting my opposition. Jujutacular (talk) 19:57, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Even if we were to look past the exposure issues, much of the image is rather devoid of detail/contrast as a result of that and/or the haze, so this may, in fact, have to be retaken to succeed. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 16:14, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

--Makeemlighter (talk) 21:43, 29 March 2012 (UTC)