Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Lasseter Highway

Lasseter Highway
Voting period ends on 10 Feb 2012 at 05:50:44 (UTC)
 * Reason:Good quality with nice colours. Although minimalist, it has EV as it is representative of large swathes of Australia's Northern Territory.  As far as I can tell, our nearest FP is over 1000 km away.  Similarly we do not have any FP Landscapes that are anything like this.
 * Articles in which this image appears:Lasseter Highway, Northern Territory, Perspective (visual)
 * FP category for this image:Landscapes
 * Creator:99of9


 * Support as nominator --99of9 (talk) 05:50, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose It's an alright picture. But, only the foreground is in focus, it has very heavy compression artifacts throughout the rest of the picture, and the sharpness needs adjustment. The caption could be improved also Dusty777 (talk) 16:08, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Please can you explain what you mean by very heavy artifacts, and where you see them? Had your download completed?  I do not expect any compression artifacts, because both times it was saved from RAW at JPG-100%.  Nor can I see any artifacts.  Caption improved.  I'll consider sharpening once I understand what you meant by "very heavy compression artifacts". --99of9 (talk) 00:00, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I can't see any artifacting either. --jjron (talk) 10:29, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * What he's seeing, (also the OOF mentioned below) is the result of heat waves. Clegs (talk) 16:03, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, the compression artifacts i thought i saw, was due to the rocks in the foreground and the asphalt on the road giving the appearance of artifacts (if you look close enough, you should see what i mean). Dusty777 (talk) 16:53, 2 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose Not enough of the scene is in focus  God Emperor Talk  20:01, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Composition leaves much to be desired sadly. I love scenes like this, so I kinda wish this were executed better. Essentially, the image doesn't flow, or carry the eye well. My eye is first drawn to the barren and slightly washed-out horizon, which, in a setting like this, is very disconcerting: it can appear tilted due to the slightest screen distortion, and if the horizon appears tilted, it really taints the shot. As for the highway, it simply enters the frame at an arbitrary vertical point and slices the shot with no apparent deliberateness. The flow that does exist (which is inherent with any road picture) brings the eye to another arbitrary and poorly placed point at the far top-right. Overall, I don't feel like I'm in the setting as I should for an excellent highway photo; instead I'm certain at once that I'm looking at a screen. I'm happy to see it's a QI over at commons, though, as it's definitely interesting and covers a poorly illustrated area. Juliancolton (talk) 01:30, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Where's the road? I mean, I see it, but it's not prominent enough in a picture supposed to illustrate the road. Opposing on composition grounds. --Rschen7754 03:01, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose I actually like the composition as an Abstract image, but it doesn't help the EV - the subject appears to be the tire tracks in the foreground. JJ Harrison (talk) 22:50, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. I've read through the opposes, but still think that the picture could be an FP.  It's bold and seems at first to convey almost surreal natural beauty, but then it's evident that humankind has left its heavy footprint (or tire tracks) on a road it's built across the plain.  I'd actually like to see this on our Main Page.   dci  &#124;  TALK   04:42, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

--Makeemlighter (talk) 04:40, 10 February 2012 (UTC)