Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Sandspit River Wielangta Forest.jpg

Sandspit River Wielangta Forest

 * Reason:The forest is a key habitat of rare and threatened species and sadly is under the control of Forestry Tasmania, with logging being allowed. I'm pretty sure that the area pictured was logged around 100 years ago. There was a settlement nearby at one stage too. I still need to find a decent ref though.
 * Articles this image appears in:Wielangta forest, Temperate rainforest
 * Creator:Noodle snacks


 * Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 00:50, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Little motion blur (I think) in some leaves, but overall a good picture. If only it were safe to move around with equipment in TZ :( --Muhammad (talk) 04:37, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Nice composition. Mfield (Oi!) 04:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose Pretty severe sharpness drop off at the edges (particularly at the bottom) and the HDR (?) has left the treetops with a fair bit of CA --Fir0002 08:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The foreground is about a foot away, and the background is 50-100m, so naturally you can't get everything in focus without cheating with that 17mm tilt/shift lens and a full frame camera or focus stacking. UWAs also have a habit of being a tad soft at the edges at 10mm. Its a two shot exposure blend in photoshop. I adjusted the masks and stuff to treat the bleeding a bit. Thanks to the wind a bit was unavoidable though. Noodle snacks (talk) 09:23, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah I see the problem - image description says it's at 20mm so I assumed you had the ability to zoom out and crop soft edges. I still would have liked the bottom focus-stacked into sharpness...
 * Description was wrong, fixed it. At 20mm the whole frame is dead sharp anyway. Noodle snacks (talk) 00:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Support  - down  load  |   sign!  00:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I'm not usually a fan of these sort of vertical landscapes as they tend to look a bit peculiar (massive change in vertical AOV is usually unnecessary) and cramped (not enough width). The photo is pretty good but I can't help but think you could have got a better photo with a slightly more conventional composition taken from a metre or two back (if practical). Also, there is a strange patch of sky in the trees that doesn't match the tone of the rest of the blue sky - it's a bit lighter and greyer. Not sure if that is just the way the HDR turned out or not, but it doesn't look right. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 10:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. Love it!!!  I Smashed   TALK!  15:47, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Diliff. Makeemlighter (talk) 01:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Though really it's a weak oppose, if I were one to do that. I don't find the composition attractive, and I can't help being put off by the blurriness of the upper foliage.  I'm in agreement with Diliff that this could have been done a little more "traditionally" for a better result.   Mae din \talk 08:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

No consensus. ~  ωαdεstεr 16  «talkstalk» 20:37, 13 April 2009 (UTC)