Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Sunset panorama

Sunset Panorama
Before you all go "Aaargh! Not another sunset!" I really feel this one is quite exceptional, and certainly at least as good if not better than the currently featured sunsets. And yes, it is not currently on the sunset article, but if the consensus thinks this is a good image I'll put it on.
 * Support --Fir0002 11:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment why not add it to the sunset article, and see if consensus *there* says it's good? It's kind of hard to work out whether it "adds significantly" to that article until we see it there. Stevage 14:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. So what is the deal with the sharp wavy transition line to the left of the tree (that got menioned on tne commons FPC page)? --Dschwen 15:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * P.S.: that sunset article is starting to overflow with pics again, so please throw one out if you insert this one.--Dschwen 15:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - I have doubts this is the original sky that existed when this photo was originally taken. If you look at the difference between the original image and the edited image, you can see a seam existed in the middle of the original that is no longer there in the edit. Definitely two separate images composited together to create one. Is an image that has been manipulated to this extent even ok to be submitted as a "Featured picture"? Roguegeek 21:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The colors of the sky can be seen bleeding through the tree branches, this is very hard to fake and leads me to believe that the ground and sky are from one picture. HighInBC 23:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Well it was, I'm not sure what the wavy line was - either a stitching fault or it looks like a polygonal lasso with no feather. I don't actually recall doing that, but I might have selectively lightened the RHS of the image and forgot to put some feather on the lasso. But I can definetly vouch that this was the original sky. --Fir0002 22:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You beat me to it by a matter of seconds there Fir ;). Well, what I was going to say was this: The image is a stitched panorama. What you're seeing in the original is the stitch line, which in that case was not blended very well. That does not mean it isn't the original sky. It is more likely to just be due to vignetting of the individual frames, or different colour balance between frames or something along those lines. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 22:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Or possibly the seam is just an adjustment layer with a bad mask that needed to be cleaned up. Undecided on what it is. In either case, I'm a little tired of seeing sunset images. Second the idea of sending it over to the sunset article to see what they say. Roguegeek 21:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The thing is they at the sunset article isn't a very active crowd. Most edits are just shifting around images, reverting vandalism and adding links/interwikilinks. The most contributions to this article sadly come from photguys. For a mundane topic like this it isn't very surprising. I gues what I'm trying to say is that there is a huge asymmetry between how much attention this article gets FPC-wise vs. its relevance in WP as an article. It might actually be the worst case of asymmetry (next to the clouds article). So why bother waiting for their response? --Dschwen 23:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * comment - perhaps the peice of house to the left can be cropped out, as it draws you from the horizon. HighInBC 23:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Before I forget it: Aaargh! Not another sunset. Not mindblowingly spectacular enough to be yet another sunset FP. --Dschwen 23:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose--per Dschwen; Also...one thing I like to see in sunsets is--a SUN! After all, that's what it's all about. Anyway, just something I like in sunset pictures (personal opinion, and if you don't accept that argument, just look at Dschwen's)Joniscool98 01:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak support. If this wasn't an image of such a photographed subject, I would support it, considering it is a technically good shot (with cropping out the house), but since these pictures are literally everywhere, I'm not sure what makes this one special (and I really don't know what kind of plain sunset picture would be special enough for FP). -- Tewy  04:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Obvious signs of manipulation around the crown of the tree (unless the tree happens to be glowing)--130.132.80.26 17:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * That's a halo, a common artifact of certain sharpening routines or certain kinds of contrast enhancement. It's not evidence of gross manipulation (i.e., content changes). -- Moondigger 18:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutral -- It's a pretty scene, one of the better sunsets I've seen on Wikipedia. However it looks a bit oversaturated and high-contrast on my monitor.  Maybe dialing them down a bit would eliminate the halo on the tree too? -- Moondigger 18:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I see that all *three* sunset photos at Sunset are by Fir0002, of which two are labelled as Swifts Creek. A little variety could help a lot here - often the most dramatic sunsets include water, a recognisable skyline, silhouetted objects etc. There are *hundreds* available at Commons - I can't, in good faith, support this as being the most remarkable of the lot. Being so similar to the two others in the article it doesn't even "add" a great deal. Stevage 09:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

-- Moondigger 01:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)