Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/NEW Laguna Beach Montage Resort

Laguna Beach Montage Resort
Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2013 at 03:23:11 (UTC)
 * Reason:Using last months comments regarding a prior version, I have retaken this photo and resubmit this new version
 * Articles in which this image appears:Laguna Beach, California
 * FP category for this image:Featured pictures/Places/Landscapes
 * Creator:WPPilot


 * Support as nominator --WPPilot 03:23, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose. Sorry, but seems unsharp. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 07:50, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Link to previous nom for those interested... gaz hiley  09:13, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Question Is it just my cookies or does the thumb show the exact same picture as the prev nom? It shows the new one once I click on it but in the thumb it's the same pic... gaz hiley  09:25, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose per my last vote - there is still no article about this resort, and thus lacking in EV... Plus I agree with King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades;  about the sharpness... Better composed pic tho IMO if that's any consolation...  gaz hiley  09:49, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I agree that it seems a bit unsharp, particularly towards the edges. To me it looks like either the lens was quite poor, or it was shot through thick glass, reducing image quality as a result. Unless there was extreme vibration and the camera was resting on the frame, I wouldn't have thought shutter speed was the issue. Can the photographer confirm if it was shot through glass? &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  12:39, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * comment No it was shot from mid air at 100 MPH OUTSIDE of the window. I open the window so I am NOT shooting through thick glass or any glass. This lens is a F2.8 NIKKOR (hardly cheap). I hold the camera OFF of anything attached to the plane so it does not vibrate. I am about a mile away from the subject when the photo was taken. --WPPilot 12:52, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that the main concern is the lack of an article on the topic to test its encyclopedic value. — ΛΧΣ  21  16:42, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It actually looks like JPEG artifacting to me... JJ Harrison (talk) 02:22, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I have the original NEF, it is more detailed up close as Wiki does not support NEF would you care to suggest another format to remove the artifacting.WPPilot (talk)--WPPilot 05:23, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's JPEG artifacting - the image is a bit soft and softness is not usually associated with artifacting. Maybe it was just the speed that you were travelling when taking the photo that resulted in a bit of blur. It doesn't seem to be motion blur though as there's no particular direction to it. Maybe it's just that there isn't enough sharpening applied. I'm really not sure what the cause of it is, I'm only guessing. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  11:24, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't really see artifacting either. Personally I think it's simply a factor of the distance, likely combined with a small amount of blur caused by it being slightly out of focus. We're not really used to looking at detail at that scale taken from a mile away, and the smoothness where we'd expect to see some detail and texture really just looks like a consequence of that to me. This would be amplified if there was a little bit of smog or something around. BTW, the date in the image page summary is incorrect. --jjron (talk) 13:45, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you're right - looking at the image closely, there is actually detail there, but it's just... soft and a bit indistinct looking, and it could be due to a slight misfocus. I suppose we are asking for a lot given the conditions required for shooting it though, but that doesn't mean FP. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  15:00, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe it is heat haze? JJ Harrison (talk) 06:36, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose I don't think that containing this scene within such a narrow-angle shot is ideal. I feel like we're missing a lot to the left and the right of the current view. A wider shot might be more worthy of FP status. Razum2010 (talk) 02:17, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Commenting so it's not piling on but this has almost zero EV. Cat-five  t  c   07:26, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

--Armbrust The Homunculus 07:14, 24 February 2013 (UTC)