Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Dry Falls

Dry Falls, WA

Reason: It is high resolution and high contrast. It has an encyclopedic value as world's biggest waterfall ever existing. And I think it has some wow effect.
Articles this image appears in: Dry Falls
Creator: Ikiwaner

Support as nominator --Ikiwaner (talk) 09:47, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose. It needs fixing of the uneven exposure & slightly curved horizon. A FP should be practically perfect in every way. --Janke | Talk 12:40, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Although the curved horizon is probably from the choice of projection, which could be changed, the exposure looks just about right. In very wide shots and panoramas, exposure can appear uneven from the sun's location—the brightness across the sky actually varies wildly in real life, though photographs usually aren't wide enough to show it. Thegreenj 17:31, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I know what causes the uneven exposure... but it still looks bad (big blotch in sky), thus very distracting... --Janke | Talk 19:34, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you zoom into the picture you will see that the horizon is completely uneven. The horizon is built out of hills and craters as you can see in Google Earth. The lens is a Tokina 12-24mm which is known for its low distortion at the wide end. Of course one could produce an even horizon e.g. with Photoshop Liquify filter. But that's not my purpose. --Ikiwaner (talk) 17:07, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question - I doubt the Ev of this picture if it doesn't show the actual waterfall. Or am I missing something? --Lord Sunday 17:01, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact that it's extinct? Thegreenj 17:34, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh my god, lol. I didn't even realize "Dry Falls". I apologize, completely spaced, lol, I now weakly support. --Lord Sunday 20:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, Unfortunately. Quality isn't quite there, curved horizon, and the sky's exposure is goofy. Clegs (talk) 14:37, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support I must be missing something. As a thumbnail, the sky looks terrible, but blow this thing up to a more normal viewing size and it the transition looks much more smooth. I don't see an issue here. Of course if it didn't have this kind of exposure variation, the foreground might be shaded and thus too dark or the sky with not enough pleasing clouds or worse, blown-out. It seems to me that the lighting is quite good! As for the horizon, this is exceptional. Most 12mm lenses are full of distortion, and yet the horizon curve (which is natural, see the comment above) is barely noticeable. The image is very illustrative and clearly demonstrates its subject. I'd have liked to see a little more on the right, but this is more than adequately encyclopedic. -- RM 15:40, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The sky and horizon aren't a problem, but does the image look a bit oversharpened. --Base64 (talk) 09:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. - We don't get enough panorama pics IMO, and this one is really nice, but I agree with Clegs (talk · contribs) that the curvature is a bit much. Cirt (talk) 19:53, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted - no consensus. --jjron (talk) 08:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]