Wikipedia:Picture peer review/Overlook over the Colorado River
Image is used in Colorado River and Escalante Route (a stub). Image is of high quality and is an image of stunning scenery in a remote area that is not and cannot be easily photographed. Meets all the criteria that I can see. Image was taken by me (User:Gonzo_fan2007).
- Nominated by:
Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 21:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Comments:
- I recently went hiking in the Zion National Park, and took lots of images while I was there. None of my images where nearly as good as this one, which is of high resolution and really appears to get the feel of the area. However, I don't think it would do all that well on featured picture candidates, just because the standard there is so incredibly high.
Most voters wouldn't like the shadow of the person on the left,and the colors of the image just look a bit washed out and lack impact. Now, I haven't been there, so this could just be because this area has somewhat muted colors. At full resolution, the image is blurry. Of course, that's a really high full resolution, but even at an intermediate resolution it's not razor sharp looking. Now, if someone else who is better at landscapes than I can also review this image, that would be great, because I certainly could be wrong about this image's changes. This is image is a very good contribution to the encyclopedia, and I thank you for nominating it here. Enuja (talk) 02:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)- I agree, I think this might do OK (with a few tweaks) based mostly on enc value. It has a great sense of place. Main problems as I see them: it's slightly tilted (I think) & could do with a slight CCW rotation. I saw the earlier version and thought (probably controversially, but what the hell) you could have left most of that shadow in for balance, taking out just the very bottom part, which you might lose some of anyway when you rotate. It can always be cropped again later, but losing that little light patch would stop it looking like a person's shadow. Most important, it's overexposed by quite a margin. Its histogram will probably show no black point exists and the gamma (midtone) could be lowered to bring back some density and saturation. I'd be wary of boosting col sat alone, that's really not a problem. Finally, downsizing to something like 1800 or even 1600 pixels, while only just big enough for this kind of subject, would look a lot more presentable without losing much hard info, and push the strong points (colour and enc value) forward. I realise it's quite a bit of messing about, but I'm fairly sure it would fail an FPC nom on overexposure and lack of definition at 100% as it stands. If you need more help and/or advice, just ask. --mikaultalk 00:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- Please note that a new cropped version has replaced the older un-cropped photo.
Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 06:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC)- I've done what I can & uploaded the edit, although I'm on the fence as to its chances. If you get a seconder, it's worth a punt IMO. If not, it's a nicer version for the wiki. Win-win! --mikaultalk 15:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Seconder: