Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Sognefjord

Sognefjord
This is a self-nomination of an image of one of the picturesque arms of Sognefjorden in Norway. The image also illustrates the Fjord article. - Worldtraveller 11:30, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Self-nominate and support. - Worldtraveller 11:30, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose --Thomas G Graf 13:00, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Any chance you might give a reason? Worldtraveller 22:09, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Too small, and the there are too many JPEG artifacts. Also the sky is over-exposed. ed g2s  &bull;  talk  16:59, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I've revisited my original scan and taken a bit more time with the post-processing to avoid washing out the sky. Also saved with a bit less compression, so any artefacts should be minimised. Worldtraveller 22:09, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I think the lighting on the sky gives it a nice bit of atmosphere. At any rate, is it even possible to not have the "overexposed" effect with so much snow and white clouds around? I can't see any obvious artefacts, usually they show up easily in the sky, so support. Mgm|(talk) 17:42, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * The artifacts are mostly in the mountainsides. If you look at the reflection, you'll see that the sky could've been less overexposed. ed g2s  &bull;  talk  20:34, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Sky could have been less over-exposed, but then the water would have been underexposed - a difficult balance. As I say, some new post-processing may have improved it a bit. Worldtraveller 22:09, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment only for the time being. I think the sky looks fine, although does Worldtraveller have a higher resolution version without a black border straight from his camera? Enochlau 21:08, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I have uploaded a version without the black border (had added it myself for display on my own web page, was too lazy to take it off again when preparing the image for here...) Worldtraveller 22:09, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Haha ok sure. The new version looks much better, but it's now a tad faded (or is that because there's fog?). Perhaps you could adjust the contrast, or if you're too lazy, run it through auto contrast in photoshop. Enochlau 20:23, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Support. I like the image. One comment: Maybe the copyright statement on the image page could clarify that the uploader is also the photographer, as the copyright notice on the linked website is not compatible with the GFDL. -- Chris 73 Talk 00:51, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * No support/Neutral: It's a very nice picture, but it simply doesn't convey all the beautiful and amazing features of a fjord. This image could also have been a lake somewhere, and it's not big enough to cut it based on it's own merit (cut loose from the article context). &#9999; Sverdrup 16:45, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutral. I like the glassy water, and the image is well balanced, but I'm a little concerned by the colour/contrast. It looks a little washed out and possibly a bit blue. -- Solipsist 21:07, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose. The overall look of the photo is a bit drab. --Fir0002 11:01, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Support - beautiful. &rarr;Raul654 08:13, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * Not promoted, close though +4/-3/3 BrokenSegue 21:10, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)