Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Pennine scenery

Pennine scenery


Self-nom. This has been here for ages. But I think It's very pretty and illustrative and is one of my favourite photographs. I hope everyone else agrees. G-Man 30 June 2005 20:53 (UTC)


 * Nominate and support 1. - G-Man 30 June 2005 20:53 (UTC) ( I get the impression G-Man doesn't support the modified sky by Fir0002 -- Solipsist 18:18, 15 July 2005 (UTC) )
 * The sky is a bit too washed out IMO --Fir0002 July 3, 2005 00:40 (UTC)
 * I think the sky is mostly white clouds, which is probably why it looks washed out. Besides its usually rather difficult to expose properly for both the land and the sky. The sky isn't really the focal point of the picture. G-Man 3 July 2005 11:30 (UTC)
 * Support 1,2. I like it. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 4 July 2005 23:02 (UTC)
 * Support 1 -- Chris 73 Talk July 5, 2005 05:55 (UTC)
 * 2 I should have done this during the 2 day period I know, but didn't get around to it. Support the edited version (with clouds) --Fir0002 July 5, 2005 12:17 (UTC)
 * Comment I still prefer the original. The contrast on the second version looks a bit overdone to me. It might be better to tone it down a bit. G-Man 5 July 2005 19:27 (UTC)
 * Do you mean how I've changed the blue hills into green hills (right near the horizon)? --Fir0002 July 6, 2005 02:12 (UTC)


 * Oppose 1,2. In the first, the sky is a wash, in the second, the lake belies the photoshopping. - Matthew Cieplak (talk) (edits) 7 July 2005 00:40 (UTC)
 * (Support) second version, if the sky is original and not a cut/copy job. -- Chris 73 Talk July 7, 2005 17:53 (UTC) ( This one is presumeably not a support as the sky in 2nd is a cut/copy job -- Solipsist 18:18, 15 July 2005 (UTC) )
 * Unfortunately due to the extreme burn out, all I could do was copy a better exposed sky onto it. Sorry --Fir0002 July 8, 2005 00:42 (UTC)
 * As I have already said (but no-one's paid any attention) the sky is not "burnt out" it is white clouds, that is more or less what it looked like when I took the picture. G-Man 8 July 2005 18:37 (UTC)
 * I find it hard to believe that the sky naturally is that pale cyan color. Another tell-tale sign is that the blue is a gradient (it is darker in the center, and lighter around the clouds) --Fir0002 04:00, July 11, 2005 (UTC)


 * Support 1,2. James F. (talk) 9 July 2005 01:40 (UTC)
 * Neutral 1 on the first. I grew up in the Peak District so I like this sort of scenery, but it doesn't seem particularly special. Oppose 2 second - in principle it is nicer to see clouds, but the sky is too dark - I'm fairly sure it is impossible for the sky reflected in the lake to be brighter than the sky seen directly, which is what makes the photoshopped version look artifical. -- Solipsist 10:31, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose 1,2. Agree with Matthew Cieplak. Enochlau 13:11, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I have made some improvements to the original version (although it doesn't seem to have updated to the newer version yet). I have improved the cloud definition and cropped it slightly. Although I still cant see why your all making such a fuss about the sky?. Does the improved version make you all happy?. G-Man 18:48, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * That's much better, but still too burnt out for my liking, to me the sky is an essential element of a good photo --Fir0002 22:15, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * Agree. Enochlau 03:15, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose 1,2 - focus is too soft - Bevo 17:22, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

This process really is quite an absurd parade of nit-picking at completely irrelevant details. I dont think I'll be bothering with FPC again. I've seen many photos worse than this one get through. G-Man 18:11, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

1st +4 / -3 &mdash; 2nd +3 / -4 -- Solipsist 18:25, 15 July 2005 (UTC) 