Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Wupatki Ruin

Wupatki Ruin

This image provides a visually dramatic impression of the ruins of the eleventh century Wupatki Pueblo and its harsh environment. It is the principal illustration in the article Wupatki National Monument.

Nominate and support. - SteveMcCluskey 02:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Quite soft at this resolution, and I think it had been down sampled quite a lot and thus the original must have been very soft. ~~Also makes me wonder what is to the left of the image and not the nothing-ness to the right.~~ --antilived ^{T | C | G} 03:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also makes me wonder what is to the left of the image, but thats not your reason to oppose, is it? Hell, I could oppose any image with a makes me wonder whats behind the camera, except for 360 degree panos... The composition is fine, in full size you see it covers the whole complex and the right part is certainly not nothingness, but needed to show the circulat structures (whatever they are - BBQ pits?). But the shadows are too dark, making it hard to grasp the structure of those ruins. And the person on the left is doubled. --Dschwen 08:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well my wording is kinda confusing, it's just that I feel most of the parts on the right is nothing but nothing-ness, while the left part is busier but was cut off from the panorama, and thus I don't quite like the composition. --antilived ^{T | C | G} 09:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The soft colors are real: grey/green sage and pinkish orange sand, contrasted with the intense blue of the sky and white of the clouds. I didn't try to produce Kodachrome-like colors. To the left is an uninteresting park center -- a modern addition -- while to the right is the real nothingness of the distant Little Colorado river with circular and oval "ball courts" in the foreground. The composition was intended to place the pueblo in its environment and I think it does that. --SteveMcCluskey 14:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK I get you point but the softness is still there: you can't see any detail in the shrubs even though it (assuming it's stitched from multiple shots) had been downsampled quite a lot, which means it's soft in the originals and not much useful pixels in the photo. --antilived ^{T | C | G} 05:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Oppose. As Dshwen pointed out there are some doubled up people. Great shot though --⁪froth^{T C} 14:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. There are a lot of minor problems, including the blown clouds, dark shadows, stitching errors, and uneven composition (as Antilived explained) that add up to my weak oppose. --Tewy 00:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support good res, interesting pic. Are somewhat dark clouds really that bad? Reywas92^Talk 21:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Spherical distortion kills it, and could have been largely avoided if the main subject was framed a little more tightly. Levels problems too. --Dgies 06:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- While I believe it is cylindrical distortion I don't quite see how it kills the picture. There are almost no straight geometrical features on it. Are you opposed to panoramic images in general? --Dschwen 10:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've seen much worse distortion, but it is exaggerated by the hills and staircase on the left, and could be been reduced by cropping empty dirt on the right. I'm not opposed to panoramas, but if they can't keep the horizon horizontal it is very unreal looking. --Dgies 18:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - The horizon is not flat, but it is not distorted; we're looking at a site with a lot of curved features. The sidewalk and staircase are curved to follow the natural contours. At the larger scale, on the left there are foothills, which are readily apparent, on the right we're looking across the valley of the Little Colorado river to the distant upslopes on the opposite side. For a good reference to the true horizontal, look at the flat under surfaces of the afternoon clouds.

In view of the comments, I could work up a version bringing out some of the detail in the shaded parts of the ruin. --SteveMcCluskey 16:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose It sure seems like the proportion is a little messed up. --¿Why 1 9 9 1 ^{ESP. | Sign Here} 05:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Fir0002 06:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]