Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Glen Canyon Dam MC.jpg

Glen Canyon Dam

 * Reason:A beautiful panorama giving the context of the dam in a stunning way.
 * Articles this image appears in: Glen Canyon. Could Reasonably be added to Colorado River and/or Glen Canyon Dam
 * Creator:Christian Mehlführer, commons:User:Chmehl


 * Support as nominator Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 10:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Exposure flaws, limited colour, small amount of sky is a tad distracting, should be a small amount more. Capital photographer (talk) 11:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Limited colour? Have you ever been to Arizona? The greens of the river double the number of colours from typical Arizona fare =) Also, on Exposure - that's exactly what Arizona looks like. IT's a desert. It's all very bright. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 14:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think a levels adjustment is required for this particular image but what I should have said was, while the colours are accurate for the time of day this image was taken, some of the finest images of Arizona I have seen are taken around dusk or early in the morning when colours are richer and landscapes seem to have more depth. Here's an example off Flikr: . However I will concede it's better than existing image. I suppose it was more an artistic oppinion however so I have corrected my vote. I'll support though.Capital photographer (talk) 01:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, aye, I take your point now =) It looks "right" to me - after all, dusk and sunrise are fairly fleeting parts of the day - but that be your view =) Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 08:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Anywayy, thinking about it, while dawn and dusk photographs have their place, to say that all Arizona desert FPs must come from those times would severely misrepresent what the American desert looks like. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 16:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed, not all should be, but the most striking and enticing images are those. As people has pointed out with other images, an image needs to draw the viewer in and make them want to know more about the subject, so in that regard the ones with more colour and contrast taken at dusk and dawn are perhaps a bit stronger in that regard, but this is good too. Capital photographer (talk) 01:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. Looks like a faithful representation to me (as far as i can remember from my own visits). Autolevels isn't the answer to everything... --Dschwen 16:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone who cares about images uses Auto-Levels. I clicked on it for a composition below to make a point that even a single mouse click improved it a bit but as I said below, I didn't keep it with the Auto-Levels changes. Levels would solve the under exposure in this image though... manual levels. Capital photographer (talk) 01:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no under exposure in this image. --Dschwen 02:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The dam, cliffs in top right, sky and the cliff faces in the center of the image are fine.Bottom corners look under over exposed though. Given auto exposure and auto focus tend to work together, I'm thinking the camera put the focus on the middle to top of the frame most and metering prioritised those parts exposing them right but has slightly under over exposed the foreground. Capital photographer (talk) 07:16, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you need to re-sit Exposure 101 or maybe slow down a little and think about it, there is no way that the bottom corners of this image are under exposed. If the camera had prioritized for the central darker portion of the image as you suggest (unlikely anyway as this is a stitched image so the center isn't camera center and in addition it was likely manual focus and manual exposure) then this would lead to it over exposing the lighter shades in the bottom corners. This is basic exposure. Mfield (talk) 15:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Um, as a photographer this is emrarrasing... I meant overexposed. Colour and contrast are less and brightness a tad too high than the rest of the image which is perfectly exposed. But anyway, there proper exposure is academic... if it looks good and is accurate, I'm supporting it. Capital photographer (talk) 01:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * If I recall my time in arizona correctly, the sun is usually hairly high, so things near you reflect more of the sun back at you. This makes things nearer you look lighter. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 16:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Conditional Support regarding it being added to article(s). Looks pretty spot-on to me. I can't see anything wrong with the stitching, and the image quality is top notch. I don't think there should be more sky or none at all. You need at least some so that you have a feel for the horizon level, and you don't need too much, since you can see already that it is essentially lots of blue sky and not much else. That said, slightly more sky couldn't hurt the composition, but not much is needed. Shomaker's Holiday, as per the discussion on the talk page of the criteria, I think that it does need to already be in an article to establish that it adds to the article, among other things. Thats not to say you should jam the image in where it doesn't belong, but it should really have a home before its nominated here. It isn't for one of us to decide whether it is better than existing images, its for all of the contributors to the article. We shouldn't feature it and then find a home for it. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 16:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, and I d think that it's better than at least some of the images in those articles, but I felt that it was better to let others make the decision as to whether they agreed with me, and have them choose to add it, as neither page is very active. However, there is no doubt whatsoever that it is an excellent addition to Glen Canyon, as the only panorama we have of it, so I've gone ahead and added it to that page as a start. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 16:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

--jjron (talk) 12:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Support A great shot, a lot of detail and - yes, quite a bit of "wow". --Janke | Talk 20:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Support per above. I've never been there (yet...) so I'm trusting the others who reassure that the perspective and exposure are accurate.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 21:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Excellent shot. Sumanch (talk) 17:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Support great picture, well done. —αἰτίας •'discussion'• 22:56, 4 May 2008 (UTC)