Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/horseshoe bend

Horseshoe Bend
Nice colors, encyclopedic, interesting... Just about everything it needs.




 * Nominate and Support --  Viva  La   V  i  e   Boheme!  01:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Nominate and Support - This photo is absolutely, naturally gorgeous. Picture of Epitome.  Žena Dhark …·°º•ø®@» 02:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Magnificent view, very sharp. Colors are vivid, hopefully true to the original scene. --Janke | Talk 03:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Janke, I didn't mess with this one much. I boosted contrast a bit, sharpened it, and that's about it.  Nothing funky.  The color balance looks a touch too magenta on my work monitor, but looks accurate on my home (calibrated) display.  The apparent color of the rocks varies depending on the lighting -- full sun vs. partial clouds vs. overcast.  This was taken in full sun in July 2005. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moondigger (talk • contribs)
 * Support nice! per above --Vircabutar 03:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Great angle, beautiful site, very deserving --DinkY2K 03:47, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. I was going to nominate this...ah well, good picture anyway. Though, I've noticed a growing support for larger pictures on FPC lately, and I'm tempted to just weak support it for that. I'll see what everyone else says. -- Tewy  03:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I would like to see more details of this beautiful place when viewing at max resolution. This might be possible with a higher resolution picture. Was this a 1-MP camera you took this picture with? Otherwise, feel free to upload the biggest version available. Mikeo 06:51, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Mikeo, your oppose solely on size is not valid, it fulfills the required criteria of 1000+ pixels. Haven't you read the discussion on the FPC talk page? There is a reason for moondigger not to upload a larger version (I guess he shoots at 6, 8 or even more Mpx). --Janke | Talk 06:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Janke, at this resolution this just is not a featured picture for me. It lacks some details that I would like to see. This makes it an oppose based on lack of detail, not on size - making it valid. At this resolution, it is nothing special. Mikeo 08:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Best=Best. HighInBC 23:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Are we showcasing Colorado or Horseshoe Bend?  Žena Dhark …·°º•ø®@» 07:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Support. Excellent shot. &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2006-08-17 09:15
 * Support. Purdy. --Billpg 18:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak support Good feeling of depth, but is there a larger version available? HighInBC 22:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutral, it's a very nice image, but could greatly benefit from a higher resolution. It'd look horrible in print or even fullscreened on many monitors. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 23:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * That depends on the print or monitor size, actually. It would make a fine 4x6 print.  And centered on a really large monitor it would look fine (as opposed to "stretch.")  To answer HighInBC's question, a larger version exists, but is not available for use here.  I talk about the reasons for that on the talk page in the "Commercial concerns" subtopic. -- Moondigger 23:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Excellent photo. Staxringold talkcontribs 02:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Support, although I also would really, really appreciate a larger version. mstroeck 07:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Support- Great image, just perfect — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.127.225.234 (talk • contribs)
 * [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]] Support As above --Fir0002 10:32, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Excellent--Melburnian 13:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Exelent picture, amazing. We need more size/detail but as it is, it still kick ass --Neo139 15:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Support, per above. Awesome! -- Thelb 4 11:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Support This is a great picture of such as fantastic looking place. The colors are amazing! Benje309
 * Support A great sence of perspective. --Lewk_of_S e rthic contrib talk 19:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Support A beautiful image with geological relevance Rtcpenguin 21:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Something just doesn't seem right about this picture. The colors of the rock and water look extremely boosted, not matching the overcast sky at all. I'd expect a deep blue sky for colors like this. I've been to the grand staircase region but this picture just looks very weird. --Dschwen 21:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose if you like, but I can't believe you're implying I would mess with it that much, especially after I already explained the conditions it was taken in to Janke above. The colors have not been artificially boosted as you're implying.  The vast majority of what you see in this photo was in full sun.  The sky was overcast to the west (in the direction this photo was taken), but the sun was high in the south as evidenced by the shadows cast on the south canyon walls (left side of photo).  Here are some sample photos demonstrating the mixed cloudy/sunny conditions at that time.  (BTW, none of these example photos have been modified in any way other than resolution reduction -- the color and contrast are exactly how they came out of the camera.)  1: The view facing west (towards Horseshoe Bend) at the beginning of the trail leading to the overlook:  .  Notice how the sky in the west has lots of clouds, but the entire visible area in the foreground is in full sunlight.  2. Here's another view facing west a few minutes later as we continued up the trail towards the overlook.   Notice how the entire western sky is filled with clouds, yet the entire foreground is still bathed in full sunlight (evidenced by the shadow cast in the sand by my daughter).  3. This is the view facing east (away from Horseshoe Bend) as we walked the trail back to the parking area after I took the nominated photo.    Notice the full shadow cast by my son on the sand. -- Moondigger 02:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Raven4x4x 08:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC)