Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Frederick Henry Bay.jpg

Panorama of Frederick Henry Bay from Acton Park

 * Reason:Strong EV, sharp image with sound DOF. Compositionaly strong.
 * Articles this image appears in: Frederick Henry Bay
 * Creator:Flying Freddy


 * Support as nominator --Flying Freddy (talk) 06:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Support, prefer edit one Per nom, lawl at tasmanian wikispam :P. The horizon probably needs a slight leveling though . Noodle snacks (talk) 06:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Two reasons. First, the point of view is not not the best and the bay is not clearly depicted; second, I don't like the symmetry and the central position of the horizon. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose The colours are extremely unrealistic and have obviously being overtly altered. ASPimages (talk) 11:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This is the user's third contribution. Intothewoods29 (talk) 16:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Question: have the colors been altered a lot? I wouldn't expect Noodle Snacks to miss something like that. Intothewoods29 (talk) 22:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * There was an original, afaik unaltered version here. I know the person that took the photograph, as far as I am aware it was just a levels adjustment between them. It could probably do with a little bit of desaturation on the blue channel as a result though. Of course I am a bit biased being local etc :)Noodle snacks (talk) 23:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Have uploaded an edit now.
 * Weak support. Will change to full support if horizon is corrected. Colours look fairly real for that part of Australia. Mostlyharmless (talk) 23:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose Colours are very unrealistic and gaudy. The original version shows that this has had quite a lot of saturation, and what looks to me to be poor application of the shadow/highlight tool in Photoshop. The grass on the RHS in particular has turned an awful shade of green --Fir0002 05:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose . I agree that the colours are just a little bit overcooked. Has potential and I could offer an edit but it would probably be best to go back to the original files for this. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 17:31, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Support. Accuracy is important and I'd give full support for toned down colours. I think I was a bit hasty in opposing outright though as the image is still very good. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 18:12, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose edit. The big portions of blown highlights in the clouds detract a lot, since the sky takes up so much of the composition, and although the colors look less gaudy in the edit, I still don't trust them to be very close to accurate, given the amount of color manipulation in the original.--ragesoss (talk) 19:02, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose. The electric blue sky I complained about at Commons has been addressed, but the huge bite in the middle still bugs me. Daniel Case (talk) 19:58, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * There's a bite in the middle? Or do you mean bight? ;-) In which case, thats the point of the image! Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 21:11, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

MER-C 12:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)