Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Crater Lake aerial view

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Crater Lake aerial view

View of Crater Lake from the air
View of Crater Lake from the air

First of all, it certainly needs a new file name, but apart from that, here's a great aerial shot of Crater Lake in Oregon (it's used in the article). Taken by Semionk. It's sharp, has good color balance. Maybe could stand a little bit of cropping out some of the clouds in the top half too. Also being used in Mount Mazama and Volcanic Legacy Scenic Byway.

  • Nominate and support. - howcheng {chat} 22:22, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Support: --Fxer 22:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC) Beautiful image of the only national park in Oregon

  • Oppose oppose per howcheng :-) But seriously, there are vile compression artifacts in lower part of the picture. And featured content is supposed to represent the very best Wikipedia has to offer. I think you should have corrected the faults you mentioned in the nomination (how hard is it to move the filename?) before nominating ~ Veledan • Talk 23:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, I was trying to gauge others' opinions on this image. I can certainly take a stab at it Photoshop and see what I can do, but there may be others (hint hint) better at me at touching up these images. howcheng {chat} 00:00, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
      • You can't correct the kind of compression I complained about I'm afraid: there is more artifact than detail and nothing can repair that. You need a less compressed original from the photographer :-( ~ Veledan • Talk 00:21, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Quality is fairly poor, and I don't find the image particularly striking. The cloud cover gets in the way. bcasterline t 00:10, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Too many clouds. Stephen Turner (Talk) 08:19, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose. Important picture for Wikipedia. Unfortunately, the quality at full resolution is not good at all, showing many artefacts. Probably from post-processing or compression - sea surface ist really bad. The cloud cover is OK - as almost the entire lake is visible. Without cloud cover, it might have been a rather boring picture. I would support a higher quality version, if it existed. Mikeo 09:43, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - the clouds don't bother me as much as the compression artifacts. --Lewk_of_Serthic contrib talk 23:35, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Personally I really like the clouds -- it gives the pic a lot of character, especially considering the lake is entirely visible. I've asked the uploader for a new version, but considering his/her only two edits were to upload the file and insert into an article, we may not be able to get a better image. howcheng {chat} 06:06, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted Mikeo 11:21, 15 April 2006 (UTC)