Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Fall in Yosemite National Park

Fall in Yosemite National Park

 * Reason:Many people do not realize that Yosemite National Park is the park of all seasons. One cannot see waterfalls in fall, but leaves fall and fall colors are also a beautiful sight. In my opinion the image adds value to the article by showing how beautiful a fall in Yosemite National Park is
 * Proposed caption:Fall in Yosemite National Park with El Capitan  viewed from the Valley Floor. See the climbers out there?
 * Articles this image appears in: Yosemite National Park;El Capitan
 * Creator:Mbz1

talk 14:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC) I withdraw my nomination--Mbz1 18:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Support as nominator Mbz1 04:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. I think it's beautiful, and the seasonal angle is a nice one.  But I predict that this will go down because of critics who say that it "lacks scale".  But I feel that that's irrelevant to the reason it's being offered here.  And the picture is flawless. Unschool 04:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the vote and for the comment. In my opinion the caption of the image does provide a scale. Have you clicked at climbers link? You could find the place, where climbers are at the original image really easy and in my opinion it is a good scale (of course, if I understood what you meant under the scale correctly).--Mbz1 04:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Question. What did you do for post-processing?  The sky looks over-saturated, but maybe that's just because I'm used to shooting drab New England skies.--ragesoss 04:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not very good with photo shops. I adjusted brightess, contrast and made it a litlle bit sharper.--Mbz1 05:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose dark halo along the skyline. de Bivort 04:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Neutral The original is extremely poor. I'm not concerned about the sky, which looks great, but you have misused local contrast settings or unsharp mask (with a high radius) and basically destroyed the picture. Edit 1 is much better, but i'm not convinced about its encylopaedic value. --Aqwis 14:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per enc value, and disregard for the layout of the article (Featured, no less) it was pasted into. Already reverted and reinstated, I can't see it lasting there. I hate to bang on about it, but this simply shouldn't be allowed. --mikaul
 * Thank you for bringing this up. I expressed my thought wrongly and it is not what I meant to say. What I wanted to say is: Looks like it is the only image at Wikipedia, which shows the fall in Yosemite. Maybe the image does not have much encyclopedic value(in my opinion it does by showing seasanol changes), but in my opinion it does have informational and educational value. The caption of the image provides the link to the image of the climbers. I do not think there's any other image at Wikipedia, which shows the climbers at El Capitan. I agree with you that the image probably will not last long in the article, but in my opinion it adds value to the article and should stay there. Surely I'm not going to post it back, if it is removed again.I agree that to put image in the article only to get an FP status should not be allowed, but I do believe the image adds value to the article. I agree that I disregarded the layout of the article by putting the image at the top section. I removed it from there and put it in the climate section of the same article, where it belongs. Do you still believe the layout of the article is disregarded? Thank you  --Mbz1 15:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose for the given image size the quality is just not enough for FP IMO. Sky has artifacts, forground is OOF, sky is too dark, and the top rim looks fuzzy. (that would probably make it a weak oppose, but for formal reasons stated above I go with a full oppose). --Dschwen 13:38, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I've made two big mistakes with the image. First one was, when I put it at the top of the article. It does not belong there. The second one was my comment in history, when I put it back after it was removed. It was a very wrong comment. This comment was not what I meant to say and I accept full responsibility for it. Of course the image(rather photographer) deserved to be opposed. Thank you for the lesson,MIckStephenson. I wish you answered my question, if you still believe the layout of the article is disregarded after the image was moved to the climate section? Oh, well...  What about the image? Well, the image is in the article in climate section and in my opinion it is there to stay. In my opinion it is a good image with encyclopedic value and it adds value to the article. I'd like to thank Unschool  for not withdrawing his support after reading this. Thank you all for the votes and comments--Mbz1 13:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

MER-C 09:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)