Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Seven Sisters Panorama, East Sussex, England - May 2009.jpg

File:Seven Sisters Panorama, East Sussex, England - May 2009.jpg

 * Reason:A detailed and high resolution panorama of the Seven Sisters, a series of chalk cliffs in the South of England. The view shows the ocean, the well-worn path along the top and the geological structure of the chalk cliffs themselves.
 * Articles this image appears in:Seven Sisters, Sussex
 * Creator:Diliff


 * Support as nominator --Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 19:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Request for smaller or more compressed version --Muhammad (talk) 20:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Shall I email a smaller copy of every nomination to you in advance? :-) I don't mind uploading a smaller version but I just don't want to clog Commons up with duplicates... Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 20:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Just get wiki to thumb the size you want: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b4/Seven_Sisters_Panorama%2C_East_Sussex%2C_England_-_May_2009.jpg/3000px-Seven_Sisters_Panorama%2C_East_Sussex%2C_England_-_May_2009.jpg is 3000px wide for example. Noodle snacks (talk) 23:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Do you have to enter the link yourself or do you get it from somewhere? --Muhammad (talk) 06:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * In firefox, right click on a thumbnail and choose properties. Copy the image url and then change the pixel size. Noodle snacks (talk) 00:32, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. I'd imagine this is a tough subject to get a composition that works for it, but Diliff has done just that.  At 100%, each screen-width column is interesting as I scroll from top to bottom, and the whole thing is also nicely balanced.--ragesoss (talk) 02:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I noticed you removed some ghost people from the original. Do you have any version with a proper person? That would add a nice scale. --Muhammad (talk) 06:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I did remove them as the blender had decided to remove half of a torso... There are plenty of people in the original though, walking along the cliffs in the distance. It would be hard to judge the scale of it regardless though, as the distance varies from about 8-10km away for the cliffs in the distance to about 400 metres away for the cliffs on the far right. As you can imagine, people would look very differently sized depending on where they were. The cliffs are up to about 150 metres high though if that helps. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 07:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Well composed, good quantity and EV. --Muhammad (talk) 17:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * In any case there are fences, people, buildings, gulls and sheep which give a good indication of scale. Mostlyharmless (talk) 03:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. Illustrative and compelling. Mostlyharmless (talk) 03:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Support - A very nice shot. --AllyUnion (talk) 05:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Support--Mbz1 (talk) 21:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Question. Since no one seems to have noticed, why's the sea so white? It doesn't look right, and certainly the other image in the article doesn't have this appearance. I can't help but get the feeling this has been overexposed. --jjron (talk) 06:13, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * A reflection of the overcast sky vs a blue one? Noodle snacks (talk) 06:38, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Had thought of that, but I've never seen the ocean look like that due to reflecting the sky (it's more likely to go a steely grey or just look dark and green or something), and as you suggest, the sky is overcast, not pure white. --jjron (talk) 07:52, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * And before someone suggests it, had also considered whether we were seeing eroded chalk from the cliffs lying on the sea floor, but again I find that a bit hard to buy given the other colours we see on the beach above the waterline. And the sea certainly doesn't look rough enough for it to all be foam. --jjron (talk) 07:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know why the sea looks the way it does either exactly, but I don't think it's overexposed. What was happening in this shot, if I remember correctly, is that the sun had just started to peek from behind the clouds (out of frame) which lit up the shallow water (I've seen this happen before, and it does result in the water looking similar to this) and also the cliffs. I've got other images from this area where the shallow water also looks similar too. In any case, you can tell that it's not overexposed because the rest of the scene is not overexposed, particularly the rocks just to the right of the water's edge (there is no HDR blending here - WYSIWYG) and because the water in the distance blends to a less brown muddy colour, and then to a greeny-blue in the distance. I'd guess that it's a combination of the murky chalky water and the fact that it stays shallow for quite some distance. But as I said, I don't know why. All I can do is suggest that it isn't overexposed and that there must be an earthly explanation. :-) Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 10:14, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * In my experience it's quite common for rough water over sandstones and chalky soils to appear quite white. I don't think there's any irregularity there. Mostlyharmless (talk) 02:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * As I commented above though, this water doesn't look that rough and the composition of the beach above the water line may indicate what the bottom is like below the water. Having said which, just happened to see a pro image of The Twelve Apostles (Victoria) over the weekend that had a similar appearance. Granted the water there can be pretty rough which would help explain it, but it may be possible. Still looks strange. BTW, I also thought the cliffs looked a bit bright, which is what I was referring to with the overexposure. How's this hypothesis - the sun peeks out opposite the cliffs, lights up the white cliffs which reflect onto/off the shallow water thus also giving that a white look, which is captured by the camera... --jjron (talk) 08:35, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that's the actual explanation but if that's what helps you believe, then I'm okay with it. ;-) The water wasn't rough in the sense that the waves weren't large, but it was extremely windy and this was chopping up the water, hence lots of flat white surf. You do appreciate that the cliffs are supposed to be white? There's no luminosity that absolutely corresponds to the cliffs as exposure is inherently subjective and relative, but I think the cliffs look fine, and they look about the same, if not slightly darker than a lot of the other images of the cliffs in the article - any darker and the grass would look rather underexposed IMO. I don't know what else to say. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 09:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Um, duh! BTW, admittedly I only loaded a preview size and copied to PS so it may not be entirely accurate, but it had quite a range of blown highlights. --jjron (talk) 15:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to spam commons with images of little value, but I could provide you with a file showing all pixels from 252 to 255 and yes there are some blown pixels, but certainly not 'quite a range'. Most properly exposed images will have overexposure on specular highlights and the like. I had a look at a number of your images (eg this and this) and they had vastly more overexposed pixels. I could email them to you to illustrate if you'd like. I'm not attempting to deflect criticism of this image - just putting it in perspective. There is no fundamental overexposure in this image IMO. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 09:36, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Water doesn't bother me. Noodle snacks (talk) 07:58, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Considering the number of things that could have gone wrong impressive.Geni 14:14, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

-- wadester 16  02:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)