Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Zabriskie Point Panorama

Zabriskie Point Panorama
A delightful photograph that would perfectly compliment the existing range of featured panoramas; my only complaint about the image is that it's not a bit taller, since I'd love to make it my desktop wallpaper! Admittedly it would benefit from some expert editing to make it really come to life, but the foundations are there for a true visual stunner.

It appears in Zabriskie Point and was taken by Maveric149.


 * Nominate and support. - Countdown Crispy  (  ? 22:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Stronger support for edit 2.


 * Comment adjusted brightness, contrast and intensity TheJosh 04:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * ... thereby blowing out the highlights in the clouds. Oppose edit, Weak oppose original. (Neutral for edit 2.) I've been there, and this image doesn't really convey the feeling of the place. --Janke | Talk 07:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose edit, weakly oppose original. Agree with Janke, and there are Stitching problems in the sky. Also there should be a higher resolution version available. --Dschwen 09:54, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Note that we already have a featured picture of Zabriskie Point here. That one could be considered for delisting however as it does not meet resolution requirements. --Nebular110 16:22, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * That one has already been nominated for delisting at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Zabriskie Point at sunrise in Death Valley NP.JPG delist. --KFP (talk | contribs) 18:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose original, oppose edit 1. Stitching errors in both, and blown highlights in edit 1. -- Tewy  23:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutral for edit 2. Better than the first two, but there are still the unfixable stitching errors and blown highlights. -- Tewy  19:10, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - can someone have another go at editing the image? I think it could be good with increased contrast, but without the blown highlights. Stevage 23:15, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, look at edit 2. Actually, now looking at the thumbnails and comparing to the other 2, it seems a bit too intense. But looking at it by itself, the image doesn't look as washed out as the others. The histogram is clearly more balanced than the other 2.--Andrew c 18:50, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose Original, Oppose Edit 1, Support 2. Per Stevage . Edit 2 is much better. Nautica Shad e  s  20:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Although edit 2 made the colors nicer (except for the dark spot which became bluish), the stitching errors are still visible.  howch e  ng   {chat} 16:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Support edit 2. I believe my concerns have been addressed.  howch e  ng   {chat} 19:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Would everyone mind taking a look at edit 2 again. I have uploaded a new version that tries to address the stitching issues and the greenish tint in the dark part of the central horizon.--Andrew c 17:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|15px]] Oppose All Original is too washed out and the edit is overdone. In addition, sure it has 3000 pixels in width (and thus technically passes the resolution requirements), but it has only 540 pixels in height which really doesn't give you a lot of detail. Disappointing in a wide landscape scene where you aren't exactly going to be cropping a lot of top and bottom out (and there aren't and digital camera's which don't give you at the very least 1000 pixels of height). I also don't think this was taken at the best time of day as too much of the picture is in shadow. --Fir0002 10:33, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Support edit 2 In case it wasn't clear above.--Andrew c 03:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

--KFP (talk | contribs) 16:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

How was this promoted? Looks like the consensus was oppose... Cєlαя∂σяєTalk 00:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeh, I agree. I don't understand how this was promoted.  JHMM13  01:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)