Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Chacaltaya Ski Resort

Chacaltaya Ski Resort

 * Reason:High technical standard, is of high resolution and is among Wikipedia's best work.
 * Articles this image appears in:Chacaltaya
 * Creator:Ville Miettinen from Helsinki, Finland


 * Support as nominator -- can  dle &bull; wicke  02:56, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose HDR is overdone. A single exposure would be more natural and encyclopedic.  Cacophony (talk) 05:38, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose Image size is very small. Personally, I like the HDR effect though --Muhammad (talk) 05:52, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Yes, the image is a little small, but the colors and texture are just beautiful and the EV is extremely high due to the strong connection to global warming - I daresay this is the best picture on Wikipedia on the subject. JovanCormac (talk) 06:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Just dropping in on the Featured Picture candidates, noticed this one, saw it didn't have nearly as many approving votes as it should. To Muhammad and JovanCormac: for some reason the copy of the image here on Wikipedia is not the full resolution. Perhaps the nominator should see about getting it replaced with the full 1600 x 1073 version from Flickr? --69.180.21.6 (talk) 06:39, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Not the right place for this type of artsy pictures. As said above HDR is overdone and doesn't add to the potential EV of the image. Alvesgaspar (talk) 07:31, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose Over baked HDR is over baked and HDR. Noodle snacks (talk) 09:23, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose Very odd looking indeed. Most unpleasant to look at in the larger versions, like a strange painting! - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 10:31, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose, and would probably oppose it being in the article too, except that there isn't an equivalent non-HDR image on commons to replace it with... Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 12:07, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * File:Refugi Chacaltaya.jpg (of a different building) is better than this one. Chick Bowen 02:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose HDR is way overdone. Kaldari (talk) 15:38, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Neutral Very intriguing and valuable image, but the HDR is too strong. It kind of looks oversaturated, but not exactly...sort of too-real.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 21:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose. May please the flickr crowd, but this has no place here. The image Chick Bowen links to is better suited and more intriguing even without the sensationalist HDR. --Dschwen 03:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose, Noodle Snacks said it well. --Aqwis (talk) 08:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Did he? I found his statement more confusing than enlightening... Overbaked is fairly obviously a negative adjective, but 'HDR being HDR' has no intrinsic negative or positive connotations, I don't think. It all comes down to whether HDR tools have been used appropriately (although I guess we're mostly in agreement here). Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 09:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think he meant that it seems like HDR for HDR's sake - it makes the sky stunning, for example, but might distract from the encyclopaedic value of the image. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 13:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Or that he dislikes HDR no matter how it's done...? --jjron (talk) 14:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That's how I would have interpreted it too, except that I know for a fact that he does use HDR tone mapping/exposure blending in most of his landscapes here... Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 19:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Ha, I wouldn't read into it too much, just a silly internet idiosyncrasy. Though, if something is obviously HDR, then it hasn't been well done. Noodle snacks (talk) 04:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose it is so exaggeratedly manipulated that is almost looks like a cartoon. Luca (talk) 20:24, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

MER-C 03:54, 17 May 2009 (UTC)