Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Everest base camp

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Everest Base camp

A view of Everest southeast ridge base camp. The Khumbu Icefall can be seen in the left. In the center we can see the remains of a helicopter that crashed there in 2003. The icefall is found at 5,486 metres (18,000 feet) on the Nepali slopes of Mount Everest not far above base camp and southwest of the summit. The icefall is regarded as one of the most dangerous stages of the South Col route to Everest’s summit. The Khumbu glacier that forms the icefall moves at such speed that large crevasses open with little warning.
A view of Everest southeast ridge base camp. The Khumbu Icefall can be seen in the left. In the center we can see the remains of a helicopter that crashed there in 2003. The icefall is found at 5,486 metres (18,000 feet) on the Nepali slopes of Mount Everest not far above base camp and southwest of the summit. The icefall is regarded as one of the most dangerous stages of the South Col route to Everest’s summit. The Khumbu glacier that forms the icefall moves at such speed that large crevasses open with little warning.
edit 1 (downsampled to 800 x 4000)
edit 1 (downsampled to 800 x 4000)


Reason
Very high resolution panorama of a beautiful and dangerous area. Gives a very immediate impression of how dangerous the Khumbu icefall is.
Articles this image appears in
Mount Everest Everest Base Camp
Creator
Nuno Nogueira (Nmnogueira)
Nominator
Debivort
  • Support — Debivort 06:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  • OpposeNeutral Bad technical quality, almost no fine texture, and lacking in vertical view angle is well. --antilivedT | C | G 07:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  • It could be downsampled (even as much as 8:1). Where do you stand on the larger (less detail per pixel) vs smaller (more detail per pixel) argument? I know many people believe that any downsampling causes a loss of information, and should be avoided if it is just for the sake of generating the appearance of detail... Debivort 07:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose original, I'd be willing to look at a downsampled version but I don't think it would be large enough at a level with no fuzziness. gren グレン 08:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Here's a downsampled version, definitely large enough (4000px on one axis). If you see blurriness in it, please point it out because I cannot find any. Debivort 09:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Definitely better... not sure I'd support it. gren グレン 09:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Support edit 1 Beautiful, enc, and still high rez.--HereToHelp 13:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose I really don't understand why there is so much discussion about resolution and detail; the image is fine in both respects. It falls flat for me solely in terms of composition. Panoramic is a very poor format choice, losing both foreground subject detail and a sense of proportion in the mountain. A 'straight' 3:2 format capture would have been a winner. mikaul 17:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment There's a stitching error to the right of the guy. ~ trialsanderrors 11:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Where, precisely?--HereToHelp 23:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
      • At roughly 6200-6250px. ~ trialsanderrors 00:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
        • Good catch. Oh well. Debivort 03:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 07:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)