Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Naajaat

Naajaat

 * Reason:This rarely visited place can only be visited via helicopter from Upernavik or by private boat. The weather was exceptionally good on this day with really good visibility, calm wind, clear sky and sun. The individual photos are from a compact camera and not excellent, nor was my original stitch from 2007. However, was been so kind to give it another try with stitching it, and I think we has managed to get the best possible out of it, and I now dare to nominate it. My English is not great. Thus, reviewers are encouraged to tweak the caption is needed. --Slaunger (talk) 20:05, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Articles in which this image appears: Naajaat
 * Creator:Photos by Slaunger, stitch by Noodle snacks


 * Support as nominator, prefer edit --Slaunger (talk) 10:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak Support Edit 1. Very nice scene, but it's a shame that the ice is so badly overexposed. The stitching looks fine. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  00:47, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak Support per Diliff. We don't get many pictures from that part of the world. Noodle snacks (talk) 10:50, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Information I agree with the concern about overexposed areas. It would have to be something that should be mitigated due to others aspects of the photo (rarity). However, I have nominated it at Commons as well and here, Herby has been so kind to work on an edit which has repaired a lot of the overexposure, especially on the Greenland ice sheet: File:Naajaat panorama 2007-08-09 2 cropped USM downsampled edit.jpg. I guess it would be relevant to put up as an alternative edit here? I am not that familiar with the circuitry here though. How would I do that? --Slaunger (talk) 11:58, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, that edit is an improvement, although the blown highlights in the ice cannot be recovered. I'll put it up as an edit for you. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  13:56, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for adding the edit, Diliff. Yes, information, which is not there cannot really be recovered, only "guessed" :-). --Slaunger (talk) 09:25, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose both. The scene is great, the ice is overexposed. --Mbz1 (talk) 15:22, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Good EV. A little bit of lost details of ice does not bother me --Muhammad (talk) 16:39, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak Support IQ not the best, but the scene is spectacular. Fletcher (talk) 03:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Support per Muhammad & Fletcher Gazhiley (talk) 11:48, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Support edit, I am not overly bothered about the ice either. Very nice shot. J Milburn (talk) 18:25, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Support edit The "overexposed" ice is a very small part of the image (which is very good). I think it was less than 5%. -- Herby  talk thyme 11:23, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

— Mae din \talk 07:35, 8 March 2010 (UTC)