Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Lady Barron Falls Mt Field National Park.jpg

Lady Barron Falls

 * Reason:The view from the lookout is pretty bad, there were fallen trees (somewhat like this) in the way and branches obscuring the right hand side and most of the top set of falls. I went climbing and then swimming to take this shot (well, shots, its a 4 image panorama). The nomination may get in trouble for the longish (2.5s) exposures but a number of existing waterfall FPs are similar in time, and frankly it looks better. It could illustrate a cascading waterfall better than the current waterfall article image too.
 * Articles this image appears in:Lady Barron Falls, Mount Field National Park
 * Creator:Noodle snacks


 * Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 11:48, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Support. I don't have a problem with the exposure length. I agree that generally waterfall exposures show the path of water better that way, although coincidentally I just uploaded a photo I took in the Blue Mountains which was a fairly short exposure and still worked well due to the sunlight lighting up the droplets of water. I may consider nominating it a bit later actually. Anyway, the 'weak' in the support comes from the framing. You cut off the right hand waterfall, and showed more of the left side than was necessary IMO. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 23:11, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Beautiful image of a beautiful place( been there).--Mbz1 (talk) 01:50, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Neutral agree with Diliff on the composition - too much of that log on the left side. The shutter speed is ok for me, but the image is slightly on the bright side for my taste. A bit darker might hide the fairly boring patches of dirt better. Stevage 10:30, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Support I usually don't like a long exposure on waterfall shots (at least for encyclopedic FPs), but for this I'll make an exception. ~  ωαdεstεr 16  «talkstalk» 00:11, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Good quality. --Muhammad (talk) 17:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

MER-C 02:49, 21 February 2009 (UTC)