Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Pamukkale

Hot Springs of Pamukkale Turkey

 * Reason:Extremely high detail, amazing EV. This has incredible wow, it's fascinating. This is one of Mila's best, plus it's an FP on Commons as well.
 * Articles this image appears in:Pamukkale
 * Creator:Mbz1

* Oppose per diliff, the edit has a wierd looking sky. The person in it does give a useful sense of scale in this case. Noodle snacks (talk) 11:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Support as nominator --₪ Ceran →(cheer→chime →carol) 14:27, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Edit 2 Good photo and good demonstration of scale. Durova Charge! 21:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The location has plenty of wow but I'm not convinced this photo does as the sky is very bizarrely coloured. I've seen better angles/composition in Pamukkale than this one. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 09:36, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Support --Aycan (talk) 10:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - Second original added. ₪ Ceran →(cheer→chime →carol) 02:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You may want to nominate that separately, as this nomination would be due to close shortly. Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 13:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Still oppose the Original 2. I've noticed a pattern in Mbz's images. They're visually interesting, but the quality/editing is often a bit suspect. In #2, the background is still extremely dark - darker than it should be IMO, even allowing for underexposure for the foreground. Diliff  | (Talk)(Contribs) 13:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Diliff, may I please thank you for taking your time to comment on the images? Here's the original (not post processed image)File:Hot springs of Pamukkale origibal.JPG in case you have a wish and time to make it look better.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. I wonder what that cable in the lower right hand corner is.  Spikebrennan (talk) 14:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not sure what this cable is.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Mila-- welcome back, I hope. Spikebrennan (talk) 15:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

More discussion on the alternates please. Wronkiew (talk) 06:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Edit 2.After Mbz's comments, I've gone back and edited the original unprocessed image to bring out the definition and I think it is infinitely better than what was originally nominated here. I had to improvise on the sky as it was fairly dull and I'm not sure if I overdid it, but it looks fairly natural to me and I probably wouldn't pick up on it if I didn't know it had been adjusted. Also, I didn't crop it to the same proportions as the original nomination as I think it is slightly more informative as-is, but I wouldn't oppose the crop either if that's what people wanted. In fact if I were to crop it similar to the original, I'd probably also crop the bottom to remove the cable and the darker patch on the bottom left. I suggest we keep this open a bit longer to give others the chance to change their vote if they want to do so. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 17:35, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * On second thoughts, I do prefer the crop as described above as it looks much less messy, and I have replaced it as Edit 2. See here if you want to compare to the uncropped version. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 18:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you,Diliff! It does not matter if the image will get promoted or it will not. What matters that you found the image interesting enough to spend your time on it.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem. When I saw the original unprocessed image, I realised how much potential there was in it. Perhaps try not to increase the contrast too much in future though? ;-) Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 20:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe better yet to post my nominations together with the originals right away in the hope thay you will help me to make my images look better. ;-)--Mbz1 (talk) 21:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Edit 2--Mbz1 (talk) 19:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Edit 2 Looking realistic now Noodle snacks (talk) 01:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

--Wronkiew (talk) 01:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)