Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Dartmoor snow panorama

Dartmoor snow panorama

 * Reason:High quality panorama of a UK National Park in snow showing a number of Tors.
 * Articles in which this image appears:Tor though I guess it probably should be on and Dartmoor too. It seems to be used in WikiProject UK geography too.
 * Creator:Herbythyme

--jjron (talk) 10:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Support as nominator -- Herby talk thyme 16:10, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: you have a Sony α 350, which is a 14.2 megapixel. Assuming that you took the photographs for this panorama in landscape format and at full resolution, this means that the panorama could potentially be up to 3056 pixels high, albeit minus the content that is lost by the need to crop Hugin's output into a rectangular shape. The fact that this panorama is only 1360px high, coupled with the fact that its width is a round number (7500px), would suggest that you have significantly downsized this picture. I'm not opposed to this practice per se, but in this case it seems like the picture has been so heavily downsized that a lot of detail has been lost. The land beneath the summit of each hill, in particular, has a really odd texture to it. As is, this picture is not something that I would be willing to support. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 12:00, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually the full one is 10000x1800. The crop looses quite a bit (as does a slight rotation).  I can't see anything significant lost at all.  As to the texture beneath the tors I am not clear what you mean.  There is a covering in places of snow, dead bracken shows through in places as does other dead vegetation, there is a lot of broken rock in the area (it was extensively quarried) - might or might not explain stuff.  Cheers -- Herby  talk thyme 12:05, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I just mean that so much of the fine detail in this picture, such as the branches of the trees and of the ground on the hillside immediately beneath each tor, is of a very low resolution: to the extent that it's impossible to resolve the texture of the trees' branches, and to the extent that the hillside has an unnatural distorted texture to it. If this picture were larger then, assuming it were in focus etc, we might be able to resolve some of the fine details that I'm talking about. I realise that in some cases these fine details aren't particularly important to the EV/beauty of the picture, but in this case I don't find the composition to be particular striking either, so I'm afraid it's going to have to be Oppose. I'm surprised that you have had to crop so much out of the picture given its composition, but apologies if I jumped to the wrong conclusions: perhaps it might be worth thinking about getting a lens with a longer focal length, then doing panoramas which are two or three rows high. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 11:08, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Support I enjoy the panoramas, this one will fit right in. Although EV could be an issue. This file only links to Tor Tim1337 (talk) 13:02, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I do want to see it in Dartmoor. It might even fit in moorland too, though the snow might weaken the enc there. I would probably support after that. Noodle snacks (talk) 06:40, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It's there now, thanks -- Herby talk thyme 08:56, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Support I was thinking about nominating this myself. Noodle snacks (talk) 09:07, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Support very nice panorama --George Chernilevsky (talk) 12:40, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Breathtaking view, it is as if you are really witnessing it with your own eyes. Kangxi Emperor 康熙帝  ( talk ) 13:57, 13 January 2010 (UTC)