Wikipedia:Picture peer review/Bryce Canyon Panorama
I think it is a good picture of the Bryce Canyon Amphitheater in Utah, USA. A version of this appears in Utah, Bryce Canyon National Park Amphitheatre, and Hoodoo (geology). I dropped the contrast and used a curves ajustment to pull out specific detail in this version.
- Nominate and support. --Digon3 16:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Comments:
- The edit looks better, good work with that. I would wait for a nom until your other hoodoo pic is finished. If that one passes you could give this a try but I personaly think the other one was better. -Fcb981 23:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- I still think it's a nice picture (I saw it on commons) but scaling down hasn't helped getting rid of OOF problem which was my only reason to oppose. Otherwise than that, I don't see why people would oppose. Blieusong 11:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, this version has not been downsampled yet. I'll do that soon. --Digon3 13:51, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- Done, second picture is the downsampled version. --Digon3 00:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- I like this shot, but I don't think it'd have much hope as an FP candidate. Despite the downsampling it's still very, very soft; since it's not a subject that's going anywhere in a hurry, people will want a better-quality image than this. If you compare to some of our other landscape FPs, you'll notice that they tend to have much higher detail at pixel level than is available in this photo. Can you go back and re-shoot, by any chance? It looks like your focus was off across the entire panorama. --YFB ¿ 00:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- I probably won't be going back there for a couple of years, but if I do I will definitly re-shoot--Digon3 00:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- D'oh! Well, it's still a lovely photo and would look great on a wall, so don't be too put off. Thanks for contributing it anyway! --YFB ¿ 01:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- I probably won't be going back there for a couple of years, but if I do I will definitly re-shoot--Digon3 00:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- I like this shot, but I don't think it'd have much hope as an FP candidate. Despite the downsampling it's still very, very soft; since it's not a subject that's going anywhere in a hurry, people will want a better-quality image than this. If you compare to some of our other landscape FPs, you'll notice that they tend to have much higher detail at pixel level than is available in this photo. Can you go back and re-shoot, by any chance? It looks like your focus was off across the entire panorama. --YFB ¿ 00:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- It's certainly better than your current hoodoo candidate, but I think you might have trouble so soon after that one, even if you wait until the one is over. None of the current hoodoo pictures are featured, are they? Honestly, I'd wait about a month, and I think the downsampled version might make it. I love impressive views of nature, though, and am much less picky on really sharp, really high resolution nature views than many of the regular posters on featured picture candidates. Enuja 00:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC) You know what, on second thought, the foreground (hoodoo?) on the left will probably kill it. It's such a shame, as this is a fantastic shot. If you put it up, I'll vote for it, but I'm not confident it will pass. Enuja 00:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- I agree, the rock on the left was unneccessary. It has now been cropped. --Digon3 17:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Seconder: