Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Puget Sound

Puget Sound from the Seattle Space Needle

 * Reason:The Puget Sound article is well complimented by this panorama.
 * Proposed caption:A Panoramic Picture of Puget Sound taken from the Seattle Space Needle with the Olympic Mountains visible in the distance. A sound is a large sea or ocean inlet larger than a bay, deeper than a bight, wider than a fjord, or it may identify a narrow sea or ocean channel between two bodies of land. Puget Sound is an arm of the Pacific Ocean, connected to the rest of the Pacific by the Strait of Juan de Fuca, in the Pacific Northwest of the United States. The surrounding land partially overlaps the Seattle metropolitan area, home to about 4 million people.
 * Articles this image appears in:Puget Sound - Sound (geography) - Seattle
 * Creator:buphoff


 * Support as nominator Buphoff 01:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose The stitching and resuolution are fine, but I don't really find the composition compelling. The blown sunlight on the left bugs me a bit too. SingCal 01:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose, poor lighting, composition. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 09:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Aqwis. Samsara (talk • contribs) 09:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm not sure this is a stitched pano so much as two shots combined... which makes me wonder if a better crop might be possible. A multi-part stitch often seriously reduces usable foreground & this might not have that restriction. More land/sea and less sky would have been a much better composition. If it is only a two-parter, it might explain the low definition, which we're unfortunately stuck with.--mikaultalk 10:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment This is a stitching of 6 photos. I have only cropped out the black space. I have down sampled this image slightly to reduce noise. At 6300 x 1400 it is still rather large.Buphoff (talk) 08:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment perhaps you could cut out the blown out parts... H92110 (talk) 16:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I uploaded an edit that crops out most of the blown-out area. CillaИ &diams; XC 21:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Heh, just shows how wrong you can be :) I missed that in the metadata. I'll have another (more informed) guess and say you're not shooting raw, which is probably why the definition isn't quite what it should be. It goes to show that even the "fine" jpeg setting uses enough compression to mess with fine detail; even in a downsampled six-part stitch. The crop from the left is a real improvement overall, but despite the lovely lighting and cloud formation, I still feel the foreground looks like it's "missing" & is a further dent in its FP potential. --mikaultalk 00:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Could well be the stitching software that is messing with the detail - some of them do that in order to mask the blending. Do you mind if I ask which one you used (Photoshop CS Photomerge?)? I think the detail in the bottom right part of the city is pretty good, but it seems to become hazy over the sea and on the more distant land pretty quickly - I'm not sure if it is actual haze or something more like Mick is suggesting. I like it, and as Teque says below, pixel-wise res is fine, so overall I'm probably neutral. --jjron (talk) 08:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Support I think you guys are being too picky. Wikipedia has very few images of this type and its definitly hi-res enough. btw: the original is better than that edit. Teque5 (talk) 03:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Support for edit one. A good work. —αἰτίας •'discussion'• 13:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

MER-C 05:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)