Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Joshua Tree NP Keys View panorama

Joshua Tree NP Keys View panorama

 * Reason:a sharp high resolution geocoded panorama detailing a number of major geological features that adds value to a number of articles.
 * Articles this image appears in:San Andreas Fault, Joshua Tree National Park, Coachella Valley, Little San Bernardino Mountains
 * Creator:Mfield


 * Support as nominator --Mfield (talk) 17:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 *  Comment Weak Support (Prefer Newer Version) is the horizon tilted or is that just a function of the geography?  Noodle snacks (talk) 02:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It's a function of the geography. The original component images, shot vertical, as well as a single frame of the entire scene, exhibit the same tilt of the valley floor from this vantagepoint. If you try it in Google Earth you will observe a tilt as well, maybe it is slightly exaggerated - either psychologically or physically - by the projection of a 150 degree panorama. Mfield (talk) 02:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Changed vote then. In my opinion the histogram could be tweaked a bit (to brighten the lighter part of the image and improve the contrast), and there a few dust splotches? to remove on the right hand sky. Would switch to Support if the edit was done (I may be able to do it after my electrical assignment is done). Noodle snacks (talk) 03:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I have removed the remaining dust spots I missed and also performed slight NR on the sky. I will beg to disagree on the histogram front though. The image feels true to the scene here on both my (calibrated) monitors. Mfield (talk) 05:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That'll do for me then. Noodle snacks (talk) 05:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You missed a spot. It is directly left of the central vertical axis of the panorama between a cloud and mountaintop. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 22:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I prefer the newer version with the forground. Noodle snacks (talk) 20:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. Yup, that's what So-Cal looks like. Good picture, great EV :) Intothewoods29 (talk) 05:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. Great panorama original, Strong Support new version, beautiful! --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 14:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Now that's what I call a panorama. Jor  dan  Contribs  15:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Support per above. Nice photo! Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 17:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Good EV and great WOW! Muhammad (talk) 19:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Support redux Even better with the rocks Muhammad (talk) 17:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. . One small concern (sorry, there's always one!), it looks like you've applied some strong local contrast enhancement to the mountains in the background as the top is significantly darker than the rest, and it just looks a bit funny. Not a deal breaker, but I would have softened it if it were me. It does make it look less hazy than I suspect it was. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 21:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Nope, no LCE, I think it is probably atmospheric haze in the valley that is not present at the level of the tops of the mountains. The ND grad I used is too soft to have caused that effect either. Mfield (talk) 04:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Support. So where are the windmills?  Durova Charge! 21:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Funny you should mention them, I didn't forget them, I took a 39 image panorama of the entire windfarm from the top of the mountains to the South which I am currently finishing up. Problem is the windfarm does not yet have an article Yes it does, it was just orphaned. I should be uploading the image tomorrow today done. Mfield (talk) 04:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Prefer edit, btw. :) Great work.  Durova Charge! 05:04, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. Amazing panorama.   Spinach Dip  22:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Support Redux Good detail but I'm not keen on the strong vignette/polariser effects in the sky in the corners - the sky looks too unbalanced/unrealistic. Also the the image looks underexposed - the foreground in particularly looks too murky for a bright sunny day... --Fir0002 08:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Interesting because no polarizer was used - it presumably is natural high altitude polarization - an effect of Rayleigh scattering which is especially visible in the 150 degree angle of the shot, which I guess makes it more natural rather than less. Mfield (talk) 15:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose original - I like the mood, the colours and the detail. But also found the symmetrical composition a bit boring. The sky is posterized, probably due to contrast enhancement or level adjustements -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Support edit1 - Much better now though the symmetry is reinforced with the new foreground - Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, the symmetrical composition is kind of innevitable in a 150 degree panorama that has been shot specifically for enc rather than artistic reasons. As for the posterization that you see, I can't see it here, where do you see it? Per my above comments there was no contrast enhancement, the contrast was controlled with an ND grad used when shooting which would not cause posterization. Perhaps the sky graduation would be smoother if I went back and re rendered the TIFFs from RAW in 16 bit Adobe RGB though. I'll give that a go at some point. Mfield (talk) 17:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Alvesgaspar for the symmetric composition, I remember I raised the point on a previous nom of yours (Los Angeles). I don't think it's inevitable. I can understand you shoot symmetrical because you actually try to ensure the level is horizontal, but then you can also shoot a second row below. Maybe something obstructed the view (?). Blieusong (talk) 18:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I did crop some foreground out as I was having difficult persuading it to stitch (partially due to it being shot handheld). I have had a strong word or two with the software so....
 * Oh sorry, I thought you shot this with a tripod, set to horizontal level, hence the horizon being in the middle. Blieusong (talk) 20:53, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * There was definitely some posterisation in the sky in the original, but the redux fixed it for the most part. It was minor, but noticable if you look for it (which I did after it was mentioned). I find that my blender sometimes introduces this when blending 8 bit images, but to a much lesser degree when blending 16 bit, for obvious reasons. I don't think that Adobe RGB vs sRGB would make any difference though as I don't think that the wide gamut is needed here. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 09:21, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment A whole new redux. More foreground for Alves and Blieusong, less posterization in sky, slight contrast change. Mfield (talk) 19:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Support new version. I think the foreground adds a lot to the picture. I like the colours and mood ! -- Blieusong (talk) 20:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Redux. Much improved. I like the context of the rocks in the foreground, and the sky is better. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 21:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Support redux. An excellent image. Mostlyharmless (talk) 23:20, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Support redux I like the mood. --Base64 (talk) 14:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Support redux much better context in edit. --Janke | Talk 15:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Support redux Having some foreground gives a sense of scale, and shows some of the plants of the area that can only be barely seen on the more distant hills. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 04:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

MER-C 05:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Interesting that nobody noticed the cloning artifacts / stitching errors in the foreground. The picture is currently under review on the german Wikipedia. --Dschwen 23:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Not sure how those slipped by either - I will fix them. Mfield (talk) 01:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Great. Hope it works out. I'll notify the reviewers. --Dschwen 02:06, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I left a message over there in the nom too just after yours. I'll replace it and leave a comment over there when it is done. Mfield (talk) 02:29, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Wow, impressive german skills :-) --Dschwen 03:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)