Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Havasu Falls 1a md.jpg

Havasu Falls
I love the colors and composition, it looks like a postcard. This is in the articles Waterfalls of the Havasupai Indian Reservation, water and waterfall. Info about the subject: Havasu Falls (Havasupai Falls meaning People-Of-The-Blue-Green-Waters) are waterfalls located on the Havasupai Indian Reservation near the village of Supai, Arizona. Created by our own User:Moondigger.

Note: In an attempt to address some of the comments below, I started from scratch with the original RAW camera file and re-processed the image without referring to my previous edit(s). The result is Edit 2, which does look better on uncalibrated displays, and is closer to the original RAW file (less processed). -- Moondigger 18:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Nominate and support edit 2. - Ravedave 03:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. I also like the composition and how everything is sharp. I guess my only question is whether it meets size requirements? -- Tewy  03:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose - low resolution, blurry, poor exposure. --GoOdCoNtEnT 03:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Low resolution? It's 821x1231 which is above the minimum, of course we can always beg Moondigger to upload the higher res as usual :) -Ravedave 04:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to get into a debate about likes and dislikes. But your criticisms are questions of fact, not opinion.  As Ravedave mentioned, the photo exceeds the stated resolution requirements. At full resolution, it is not 'blurry,' though the Wiki scaling algorithms do cause the thumbnail here and on the initial image page to look somewhat soft.  Click here for a direct link to the full-resolution photo:  The exposure is correct for the difficult (mixed full sun/shadow) lighting.   If it looks too dark in the shadow areas, make sure your display is at least calibrated for brightness/gamma based on this test image: [[Image:Shadowtest.jpg]].  You should be able to see the three brightest circles, though the third should be only just visible. Oppose if you don't like it, but at least make sure you're viewing the full-res photo on a semi-calibrated display.  Thanks -- Moondigger 04:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Size is within the accepted limits, the photo is sharp on everything except the water, which is meant to be bluured. I think it's a great photo. PPGMD 03:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose Resolution is a little low. A higher resolution image would be preferable. I'm not sure I really like the position the photo was taken from, I've seen better photos of the falls taken from different angles. However, I would still be willing to support if a higher res image is uploaded. --Nebular110 04:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I decided to checkout google images to see what else there is on these falls. Results here, pretty interesting, especially the dude on a toilet. Hows that for random? Not sure if that helps or hurts this nomination. -Ravedave 04:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Who knows? I don't think googling for images would help most nominations, as then people get to comparing the nominated images with anything and everything available on the web, many of which are not free-licensed or available for use on Wikipedia.  FPs are supposed to be Wikipedia's best work.  I like this image (it's mine, afterall) but opinions vary. -- Moondigger 04:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You've seen better photos of Havasu Falls here on Wikipedia? My primary motivation for uploading this one was because the others I found here fell far short of my memory of the place.  As for resolution... I don't know what to say. There are 600 and 800 pixel images in the current featured picture listings that don't seem to bother anybody...  despite the fact that they're well short of the stated requirements.  Yet when a 1200 pixel image is nominated, exceeding the stated 1000 pixel requirement, people oppose it for reasons of resolution? -- Moondigger 04:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Interesting indeed. No not better ones here on Wikipedia, but in other places. That's why I said I would support if a higher resolution image is uploaded. I know it meets the requirements but when I download the full resolution file and view it, the image still seems somewhat grainy and blurry to me (and my monitor is calibrated correctly). There's no doubt that its a great picture, but for me it's not a featured one unless the resolution is improved. Personally, I prefer the photos taken from below looking back up at the falls rather than the pics taken from the top of the falls. But that's just my opinion. There is one image of the falls taken from below that I saw a few years ago that really sticks in my mind. I think it was published in Arizona Highways. I'm trying to find a link to it somewhere on the web but no luck so far. --Nebular110 04:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * FWIW, if I had an image that I had a reasonable belief could be sold to Arizona Highways, I'd sell it (which would make it ineligible for Wikipedia's required licensing). Of course as of the last time I checked, Arizona Highways was still refusing digital files... if it ain't on Velvia, they ain't buying it.  Composition's a funny thing.  I have images of Havasu Falls taken from lots of different angles, including from water level, and I liked this one best.  The resolution thing is a pet peeve of mine, so don't take my comments harshly.  I just think if 1200 pixel FPCs are going to be shot down as too low-res, then the stated requirement should be for 1400 pixels or more.  Though I have a sneaking suspicion that if the requirements were changed to 1400 pixels, then people would vote against 1400 pixel images because they only just met the requirements. :) -- Moondigger 04:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You can still sell your photo, and still license it Wikipedia, there is nothing in copywrite law that prohibits releasing your photo under different licenses, there is also nothing that prohibits Arizona Highways from using your GFDL photo that is here if it's big enough for their uses, but if they want a full resolution version, they should come to the photographer. Under Wikipedia's backward copyright rules the only way to retain commercial paid usage of your photos is to give a lower resolution version to Wikipedia, and keep the full resolution version for your commercial clients. PPGMD 13:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. -- Moondigger 04:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Fulfills resolution requirement (still, larger is always better... ;-) You really need to look at this in full size, not just the downsampled half-large version on the image page. Very crisp, very sharp. If only someone would photoshop out those people... (just kidding!) --Janke | Talk 05:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|15px]] Oppose The colors/lighting look kinda funky on my monitor. Looks like it's had some pretty extreme shadow/highlight applied to it. I too have seen some really great photos of havasu falls:  . Admittedly they are done by professionals and certainly not free, but even a quick search on flickr comes up with some free content which I think are more aesthetic:    - they are of course not technically as good as your shot, but then again they were taken with a Kodak LS443. I uploaded an edit, but I'm not particularly happy with it. --Fir0002 07:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * None of the free shots you linked to are Havasu Falls. They're Mooney Falls, I believe.  This demonstrates one of the problems with comparing FPCs to googled images -- the risk that the googled images might not even be the same thing.  The photoshop shadow/highlight routines were not applied to mine, though I did toy with the shadow exposure using layer masks and selective burning/dodging... otherwise the shadow areas are totally lost.  As for color... my edit is pretty close to reality, not oversaturated or with unnaturally boosted contrast.  It looks like my memory of the place, not an artificially-enhanced version of it.  The non-free Havasu images you linked to have various other problems: blown sky and water; obvious misuse of graduated ND filters; the water too blue/not green enough, or a combination of these.  (The water really is turquoise there.)  I'll say this: it's going to be pretty annoying and tedious if people have to start defending their FPC candidates against comparisons to photos googled from all over the web.  I think this sets a bad precedent.  FWIW, for the reasons I mentioned above, I think mine is better than the ones you linked to anyway.  But certainly people can find photos somewhere that are better -- maybe one taken in different lighting would have a true black tone somewhere without blowing out the water or totally losing the shadow areas.  I just don't think doing so is fair or useful here.  The vast majority of currently-featured images have counterparts somewhere on the web that are better. -- Moondigger 12:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I share your pain there. It has been pretty common for images of mine to be 'improved' by others here but (in my opinion) they have only taken away from the realism and authenticity of the image. The trouble is, not everyone shares the author's goal of accurate reproduction of the scene - they want images that scream "vivid!" at the viewer. That said, I feel like the shadow area has been lifted a little too much and appears a bit strange and lacking contrast to my eye. That said, I have to admit that I'm not sure whether that's merely my preconceived expectation of the limits of film, as I can imagine that the human eye would see shadow and highlights in a similar way to as it is represented here. In any case, I would certainly prefer to see the falls when the lighting was less harsh but obviously that is what separates a pro and an inspired amateur like you and I - we'll chase the shot but won't follow it to the ends of the earth. :) Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 01:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Diliff, this is about the tenth or eleventh attempt. When I left the right side wall darker, it looked strange to my eye, and made the water in shadow too dark.  I masked the 'shadow water' and only adjusted the wall, but then the water and wall didn't match and looked obviously wrong.  I have noticed that my current version looks great (to my eye) on my primary, calibrated monitor -- but does look semi-low contrast on some randomly-selected (and mostly uncalibrated) displays I have access to.  That's why I put up the calibration target next to the images -- this one (in particular) seems more sensitive to display calibration than most of my other images. (Of course this target only gives a rough estimate of proper brightness, leaving other things like gamma, contrast, and color balance unaddressed.  But it's better than nothing.)  FWIW, I've done pro work before on assignment -- but when I took this picture I didn't have time to "chase the shot" to better lighting conditions; I was chasing my children around, trying to make sure they didn't fall into the canyon or get stung by a scorpion ;^) -- Moondigger 04:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Support original Edit2. Higher res would be nice, but the picture is pretty sharp. The edit is a bit over the top (it blows out parts of the waterfall) and it makes the colors look like an old technicolor-movie. --Dschwen 08:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Support original Edit 2. Beautiful picture, high quality, nice colors, good composition. I prefer the non-edited version. Mikeo 20:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Support original, or one that is somewhere between the original and Edit 1. &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2006-08-15 00:04
 * Support original Edit 2 - Lovely photo, contrast looks fine on my (properly calibrated) Mitsubishi DiamondPro 930SB, highly illustrative. Edit 2 is even better. Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial ShareAlike license only permit reuse for non-commercial purposes? I've released all my images (not that they approach the standard of most of yours, Moondigger) under CC-BY-SA 2.5 for that reason. I should have thought that you could reasonably upload full-resolution images under that license for use in such projects as Wikipedia without worrying about not being able to sell them, as you could sell the rights for commercial use instead? --Yummifruitbat 12:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Nope, CC-BY-SA 2.5 specifically allows commercial use. See this link, specifically the third bullet: .  As others have mentioned, you are not prohibited from selling copies of the work, but there would be little reason for somebody to buy a copy when one is licensed for free here. -- Moondigger 13:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Apologies, that didn't make a lot of sense. I meant that you could use the non-commercial license: . I'm not too worried about people making commercial use of my work at the moment, and doubt they would anyway, so I've been using just the by-sa license. I'm not sure what Wikipedia's position on non-commercial-only licenses is though... --Yummifruitbat 20:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Non-commercial licenses such as the one you pointed out are unacceptable for use on Wikipedia or Commons. Ditto for no-derivs licenses: unacceptable. -- Moondigger 20:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict, oops) Sorry, I'm talking a spectacular amount of rubbish today, please ignore me... --Yummifruitbat 20:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No need to apologize. Wiki-required licensing is a point of confusion for many people, judging by the comments I've seen around here.  This discussion might help make things clearer for some folks. -- Moondigger 20:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks :) - On that note, for reference: Image copyright tags... which I've read several times before today, so I should definitely have known better than the above. --Yummifruitbat 20:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * weak support - I like it, but a larger copy would turn my support to strong — Preceding unsigned comment added by HighInBC (talk • contribs)
 * Neutral Technically nice shot, but am I the only one who thinks that there is a weird figure/ground effect in the background cliffs? The lighter, less saturated colors of the cliffs in the distance against the deeper colors of the foreground make it seem like the background is closer to the viewer.  The absence of a sky to provide depth cues contributes to this effect. Wickerprints 20:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why you're perceiving it that way. Typically one would expect more haze in the distance, since you're seeing distant objects through more air than close objects.  Consequently, one normally perceives less saturation/contrast in distant objects when compared with something closer.  That's what's shown here.  In any case, the background looks like the background to me... I'm not seeing the effect you describe.  Does it appear that way in both edits, or just the original? -- Moondigger 21:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: I went back and processed from the original RAW file again, without referring to any of my previous edits. Not sure how others will react, but this one has a bit more contrast and other subtle differences.  Sorry to confuse the issue like this, but those of you who are on the fence might like this one better... -- Moondigger 01:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I checked, and it does look better on my old laptop screen, and on uncalibrated displays. I'm going to make Edit 2 the default image on the articles I placed the original on.  -- Moondigger 01:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * For a weird trip load the original and Edit2 in two browser tabs and alternet between them rapidly. I don't know what Voodoo-magic you used to cook up the edit, but the two versions look like they have been taken at different days now. --Dschwen 07:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No voodoo magic... just the fact that I started from scratch and didn't re-use the layer masks I created for Edit 0 when I re-processed Edit 2 from RAW. I prefer to do manual burning/dodging over Photoshop's automated shadow/highlight routines.  FWIW, I 'monkeyed' with Edit 2 a lot less than I did with Edit 0; Edit 2 is closer to the original RAW file by far.  Also, I now notice that I somehow screwed up one of the layer masks on Edit 0... a skip of the mousing hand, so to speak. Right where the main falls plunges into the pool of water, in the froth near the shadow line, it looks like there's a dark smudge.  That's not in the RAW file out of the camera, and it's not in Edit 2. -- Moondigger 13:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll happily take you word for it, and change my support to Edit2. Maybe a few words about the editing process should be put into the nomination paragraph (in general). --Dschwen 15:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Support - Lovely composition and image but the light conditions are less than ideal. The shadows are too dark. doniv 05:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Very nice composition, exposure and colour. New t on2 22:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Some P. E rson 00:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * weak support edit 2 --Vircabutar 00:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Support edit 2, stunningly beautiful. Not having this listed at WP:FPV would be a tragedy.  -- Cyde Weys  04:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Support consensus version. This cathces the eye, though those pesky swimmers under the falls are a bit annoying. --jjron 12:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Support edit 2. This one has the most realistic 'look' (to my eyes). The differences are subtle but important. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 21:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Support, any version Beautiful.  Really contributes to the sense of beauty of the place, which you would not otherwise have.  Jeeb 02:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Support edit 2 I really like this picture. Shame there's a couple of people in it, otherwise, excellent. Barnas 00:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

(+17.5/-2.5) I wouldn't close a nom for one of my own pictures if it was a closer call, but this one should be safe. Edit 2 is the clear favorite. -- Moondigger 02:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)