Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Waterfalls and stream, Uluguru

Waterfalls and stream, Uluguru

 * Reason:High resolution, good quality image (QI at commons), illustrating the flow of water from a waterfalls through a stream, and the waterfalls and tributary at the Uluguru Mountains. IMO, the image is thus very encyclopedic.
 * Articles this image appears in:Stream, Uluguru Mountains
 * Creator:Muhammad


 * Support as nominator --Muhammad (talk) 20:06, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose sorry, low EV, little wow factor, too little detail in large shadow areas. --Leivick (talk) 20:24, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Support - I think there's a lot of wow value (which isn't even in the Featured Picture Criteria) and EV in this picture. Good quality pictures like this are always useful in the articles they illustrate. Possibly the best picture in the Stream article. Intothewoods29 (talk) 20:33, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose Agree with Leivick. Low enc for Ulguru - this could be practically anywhere. Too high contrast - water blown, murky shadows. --Janke | Talk 07:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * This is a scene seen by almost all visitors to the Uluguru Mountains, since it is near the foot of the mount. It illustrates the presence of the waterfalls and streams at the mountains, the types of rocks present, the vegetation, the sun cover, transport of materials through streams (the branches). Uluguru is not the only article the image appears in. No contrast was added, and I don't see any blown water, the histogram seems fine. Muhammad (talk) 09:47, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * What I mean is that, at the first glance, this could well pass as a stream for instance in Finland, my home country, or anywhere else, in fact. And no, the histogram is not "fine", quite the contrary. It's all bunched towards the black, and there is a small spike at 255,255,255 - i.e. there are blown highlights. Understanding a histogram is a bit counter-intuitive... --Janke | Talk 16:02, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose It's a nice shot but I don't think it's extremely informative about the Uluguru mountains. And I do think the waterfall is blown somewhat at the top and bottom. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but because the image has large shaded areas, and the waterfall is a relatively small area, a blown highlight might not look like such in the histogram. I do see a small spike at the right; that it is small, points to the possibility the image is too dark in other areas. Fletcher (talk) 13:25, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose, too dark in too many areas. Daniel Case (talk) 14:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak support It shows how a stream looks well, and gives a little idea about the nature around the mountain. You could add more caption to the picture though: what altitude is it? and for the stream article you point out the different parts of the stream and how the bed has formed, why it does not meander. Atm it does not connect very well with the prose in the stream article. Narayanese (talk) 20:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose Illustrative, but distracting shadows are everywhere. It's not about whether contrast was added, it is about how the light was captured. --Base64 (talk) 10:16, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose Great technically, weak compositionally and encyclopaedically. The near centre of the image is some dark bushes. Cropping it about the half way mark and just keeping the right would be more interesting. Stevage 03:00, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose It's nice if you like water. But there is no reflection and it doesn't portray anything special. Shii (tock) 04:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose: It's too dark for me. Can we adjust the contrast and brightness a little bit? Alexius08 (talk) 07:12, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * OpposeThis could just about be anywhere. Noodle snacks (talk) 00:37, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

MER-C 08:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)