Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Pinnacles National Monument

Pinnacles National Monument

 * Reason:EV
 * Articles this image appears in:Pinnacles National Monument
 * Creator:mbz1


 * Support as nominator --Mbz1 (talk) 02:37, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Support: good EV, good technical quality, nice composition, interesting subject. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 08:24, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Spikebrennan (talk) 22:24, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Support definitely - good image -- Herby talk thyme 17:27, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Durova  386 01:41, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose the sky is not optimal. I don't know the place but the composition doesn't seems to be optimal either. Why to take so much of the hill on the left (applies to original and alternative 1) and not more of the pinnacles showing more of the dark volcanic rock? Maybe even a different direction or altitude can help.  franklin   02:56, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose due to the awkward composition, especially the sky along with a bit unnecessary strong contrast in level. If you adjust the level, and then manipulate to increase the upper space (the blue sky) by clone-stamping, I'm willing to change my vote.--Caspian blue 19:37, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Added edit. Is it what you meant?--Mbz1 (talk) 21:01, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak support edit 1 Some FPC regular said that I'm too sensitive to colors in reviewing photos, and I think I am. I think the increase of the sky makes the composition much stable, and look better. The decreasing of the level makes the scenery much natural, but the de-satuaration of the sky makes me hesitant to change my vote to full support.--Caspian blue 05:40, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem I saw with the sky is that there is almost no detail there. The rocks are a part of the picture that has a lot of contrast and texture, then having the sky looking flat is not nice. My feeling looking at this picture is similar to those old movies with a guy riding a horse on top of a flat background that is moving. I was trying to do a curve adjustment on the sky but it happens that both; I have not much experience at that and the detail on the sky is only given by very few narrow bands on the sky who's color is too similar to the rest to make them noticeable without without giving weird colors to the sky.  franklin   07:28, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

'''Comments on the edit, please. Which do we prefer?''' Makeemlighter (talk) 05:10, 2 January 2010 (UTC) Oppose both per Franklin. -- mcshadypl T C  05:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose The lighting could be better - the shadows are pretty deep. Noodle snacks (talk) 10:44, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose It's really not that striking. Not an interesting enough subject Nelro2 (talk) 01:12, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Or, for that matter, the alt. Could supporters please clarify? --jjron (talk) 11:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * For me the alt is the best among them. Still not sure about the need of ending the picture at that point from the right. (personally I would also remove the light colored ground in the foreground)  franklin   13:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * For some reason I thought I'd voted on this, but haven't - anyway, for me compositionally the alt is the best also, so if one's to be promoted I would go with that. --jjron (talk) 13:36, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose I have to agree that the shadows are too dark in this one. It's dark rock and darker shadows. The alternate has slightly better composition but it's still suffering from being too dark. Victorrocha (talk) 06:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose It's missing a "wow" for me, I think due to the composition and lighting. Despite the good caption, the rock outcropping just doesn't stand out to me. Fletcher (talk) 02:54, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

--Makeemlighter (talk) 02:02, 4 February 2010 (UTC)