Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Lower Consolation Lake

Lower Consolation Lake

 * Reason:Another beautiful image of Banff National Park. This is a breath-taking and stunning image.
 * Articles this image appears in:Moraine Lake, national park
 * Creator:Cszmurlo

Weak Oppose It is quite nice but the obvious lighting/feathered HDR attempt is too distracting. Plus as mentioned above it hasn't got terrific enc value. --Fir0002 11:27, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support as nominator -  Milk's   Favorite   Cookie  01:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Breathtaking indeed, though the upper-right corner could be a little sharper (and not cut off)--HereToHelp (talk to me) 02:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support - great picture.   jj137   (talk)  03:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support- Ahhhh.....pschemp | talk 06:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose It's lovely, you can almost breathe the crisp mountain air.. but it doesn't hit a big encyclopedic note at all. There's precious little of the lake in the shot – it actually looks more like this – and the bit of it you do see (with the underwater tree remnants) I would prefer to crop out to improve overall composition. Honestly, I can see why it will garner support but I'm left wondering what the name of the mountains in the distance is, as they're the only really prominent subject. --mikaultalk 09:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, that's Moraine Lake; this is Lower Consolation Lake, which is adjacent, but not the same.  howcheng  {chat} 23:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * question what's going on with the shadow intensity? Is this an HDR image? The shadow on the right side of the valley is dark along its edge, but is bright lower down. It looks like it has been selectively lightened within the shadow. The reflection of the sky near the far mountains is brighter on the lake than it is in the actual sky. I suppose that's optically possible, but really, it looks selectively lightened in the shadows. de Bivort 16:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That's exactly what it is. It could have done with being softer, certainly, but the effect is similar to using a graduated ND filter over the lens to darken the sky relative to the FG. It's such a straight line it might even be a filter. I don't mind it, actually, even though it is a bit obvious. --mikaultalk 16:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I guess one of the points of this whole photography adventure is to replicate the perception of a scene, and given retinal adaptation, this might not be too far from that perception, but it just looks too manipulated to me. de Bivort 19:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose per distracting selective lightening. Otherwise I think it is very nice. de Bivort 19:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose for not really representing the subject article well. Great shot, though.  Try for FP on the commons. gren グレン 10:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support wow!! Mario1987 (talk) 12:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose lack encyclopedic value. Cacophony (talk) 18:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: I was considering nominating this the other day (I think we followed the same set of links from the FP article below), but I knew there would be gripes about the "representation" of the lake. I'd support it, but I don't think there's a chance of it passing at this point. Nice find though.— DMCer ™  08:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Now that it's in national park, it becomes exceptionally encyclopedic. The image quality, obviously, speaks for itselft!— DMCer ™  12:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 *  Conditional support. I think this would make a great encyclopaedic image in national park. It would also work in an article that discusses definitions of "pristine" in the context of ecology. It seems we don't yet have such an article. Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * As this nom has been going for some time now, I've gone ahead and inserted the image as proposed. Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose; it's a great picture, no doubt, but it lacks encyclopedic value. -- Altiris   Helios   Exeunt  08:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It's in two articles now, so why am I still opposing? Support! Yes, I reiterate that this is a great picture...although "stunning" might have been a better word. -- Altiris   Helios   Exeunt  04:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Angelono2008 (talk) 14:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support superb picture. I've been there twice and this image definitely captures the feeling of Banff NP. Rudy Breteler (talk) 00:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Excellent picture, superb quality. Schcambo (talk) 12:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support as creator. Hope that's not considered too egotistical but I think it captures the spirit of the place and it looks like the shot can use all the help it can get. (Chuck Szmurlo) (talk) 30 January 2008(UTC)

MER-C 06:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)