Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Zabriskie Point

Zabriskie Point, Death Valley, Late Morning

 * Reason:Shows the incredible landscape and natural colors of Zabriskie Point.
 * Articles this image appears in:Zabriskie Point
 * Creator:jlkramer
 * Nominator: Jlkramer


 * Support &mdash; Jlkramer 18:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Neutral Fascinating-ly desolate, but fairly boring composition (just a lot of low rolling dunes)--⁪froth T
 * Oppose because the watermark makes it ineligible for FP --⁪froth T 21:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose. We already have Image:Zabriskie Point-Panarama-edit2.jpg, which I believe is a lot better.  Michaelas10   (Talk)   19:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Attention! A copyright appears in the bottem right corner of the image reading: ' Copyright 2006 Jonathan L. Kramer www.CableTV.com ' because of this I must Oppose. -Fcb981 19:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Support Somehow the composition is a little weird; I can't put my finger on it but hey, it's still a good picture. (without Copyright). -Fcb981 05:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose. (Edit conflict) I'd probably otherwise be swinging toward neutral or weak support but in the bottom left corner is a watermark advertising an unrelated site. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 19:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Support. I agree with Fcp981 that the composition could be slightly better, (just seems unbalanced and lumpy but I can't put my finger on it either) but the resolution is there and although I don't think the previous FP was oversaturated (it was taken at a different time of day, and seemingly a different view), the colours seem quite neutral and pleasing. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 10:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Compare it with Image:Zabriskie_Point-Panarama.jpg. The edit jacked up the saturation quite a bit. --Dschwen(A) 09:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean, but I think the majority of the difference is due to contrast adjustment. I took the original image and lifted the black point up slightly to increase contrast and it looked pretty similar to the edit, without touching the saturation at all. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 13:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment to be fair, the picture has a reasonable resolution (twice that of the current ZP FP). Of course the colors are not that insanely sexed up, but thats good thing. The watermark must go if you want my support. And let me suggest two things, upload your pictures to commons insetead, and wait a few days after uploading and inserting the pic. I hate to repeat myself, but FPC is not a my new pretty pic competition, but... ...read the criteria. --Dschwen(A) 08:41, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose Copyright notice - Adrian Pingstone 09:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment from JLKRAMER: Sorry, I didn't realize I had uploaded the image with a copyright notice. I have removed the notice and uploaded a clean version.  No offense to the community intended!  As for the colors, they are very nearly as seen on the December morning. It is an amazing place of amazing colors. Please reconsider.  Thanks.
 * Support. Technical quality is way better than the current FP and it has nice natural looking colors (eat this, saturation-junkies! ;-). One more thing though, if this is Image:DSCN2857pano.small.jpg, where is Image:DSCN2857pano.regular.jpg or Image:DSCN2857pano.big.jpg? --Dschwen(A) 09:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment from JLKRAMER: Dschwen, I named it 'small' since the original full size image is about 15 MB. If anyone would like the full size image I'm happy to post it, but it will be a slow download without a high speed connection.  Jlkramer 04:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Support, it's a wonderful image, but why did the watermark claim copyright? You've released it under CC and that is irrevocable. Noclip 01:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Unless I'm mistaken, you still retain the copyright to the image unless you specifically release the copyright. You're only releasing the image under a particular licence with CC. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 10:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Support- higher quality, larger and more natural looking than the current FP. Jorcoga  ( Hi! / Review ) 07:36, Friday, 16 February '07

Oppose Dull colors, quite probably as a result of taking the image at the wrong time of day or on a hazy day. Interesting landscape which I feel can produce a better image. Perhaps taken at sunset or with a polarizer --Fir0002 05:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment from JLKRAMER:No, Fir0002, the the photo notes indicate that I took the picture in late morning (a but before 11 a.m.). No filters were used, much less a polarizer, which would have altered the true colors shown in this picture. --jlkramer 11:02, 20 February 2007 (PST)

Raven4x4x 07:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)