Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Horsetail Falls

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Horsetail Falls (California)

Image appears in Horsetail Falls (California) and in Desolation Wilderness

• Nominate and support. - Phreakdigital 22:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Suppport. Great photo. Love the water. Iorek85 03:19, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Support - nice place. unfortunately seems a little blown out in areas. edit? Henry A-W 08:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Nice scenery but not the ideal view of the falls. Too obscured. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 22:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support - lovely shot, obviously adds a huge amount to the article at this point. It'd be good to see some other photos of the waterfall for comparison though, to see how much we're missing out on? I don't see any blown out highlights except possibly a tiny patch right in the upper right? Stevage 10:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose as per Diliff; we seem to be missing a lot of the falls, and I want to know what's there. I wonder do these falls need their own article? The current article is so insubstantial, can't it just be included in the Desolation Wilderness article? --jjron 12:39, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - ok so i do have another shoot of these falls, but its very difficult to get to a better place to shoot these falls because there are cliffs surrounding the falls...the reason i made its own stub is for a couple reasons...so it can be included in the category Waterfalls of California(help my link) and so it doesn't make up a disproportionate amount of the Desolation Wilderness article as it is just one waterfall...I also am adding many other stubs in the Desolation Wilderness...falls, mountains, Trailheads, and Lakes...Phreakdigital 20:40, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support - beautiful pictures --GoOdCoNtEnT 02:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. They're both excellent pictures, but as Diliff said, more of the actual falls need to be seen (unless there is no possible way to get a better shot). --Tewy 03:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak oppose for now. Yes, it would be nice to see more of the falls but in many cases it can be difficult to get such a shot without risking falling of the edge of a steep precipice and personally, I don't think any featured picture is worth that kind of risk :-) I agree with Henry A-W, picture quality could probably be improved by some editing. --Nebular110 04:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - just so everyone knows these are a mosiac...a stitching of 18 images...two rows of 9 images...these falls are very difficult to photograph...I dont think the judging of the final image should be effected by the process needed to create it, but its also hard to see people judging the images without knowing the process - Phreakdigital 06:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, the fact that it is a mosaic shouldn't really affect the judgement of it. You should be able to get an angle of view similar to this with an ultra wide angle zoom lens, and the resolution isn't really significantly better than a single image. In addition, I can see some stitching faults in the second photo - there is a ghost of the trees at the top right, and more ghosting on the rock on the bottom left. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 15:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. I like the composition on both, with a slight preference for the second. However the technical problems mentioned by others are distracting. If it's possible to re-shoot, you might try using an ultra-wide lens rather than stitching together a mosaic. -- Moondigger 20:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted (+4.5/-3.5) -- Moondigger 02:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)