Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Great Zab

Great Zab River edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 Sep 2010 at 18:47:31 (UTC)

Original - Landscape of a section of the Great Zab River

Reason: Beautiful and eye-catching.
Articles in which this image appears: Great Zab
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Places/Landscapes
Creator: jamesdale10

Support as nominator --Gyrobo (talk) 18:47, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose; those simply aren't the right colours. Yeah, it makes it an interesting shot, but it's really not suitable for an encyclopedia. I've also fixed the author information. J Milburn (talk) 18:52, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with J on this one. Pretty picture, but it breaks number 8. Gut (talk) 21:15, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I'm sorry: it's striking, but the very brightness of the colors are rather too unnatural. Clementina talk 08:49, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm not convinced that the colors are the result of digital manipulation. Tho only thing that looks off-color is the river itself, and it seems possible that color seen in the river is the reflection of the sky where the part being reflected is blue. It looks odd because the only part of the sky seen directly is white so when you look at it you might think the entire sky is overcast, but it reality it may only be the bit seen in the picture. If you look carefully you can see that the parts of the river near the horizon are a lighter color than the rest, which would make sense since those parts would be reflecting the clouds above the horizon. Another thing to notice is that there are a couple of spots where the river appears to be flowing faster, and so would presumably not be perfectly horizontal, and the river appears to be reflecting a different color from adjacent parts that are level. The picture does look odd though and perhaps a shot taken on a different day would have been better. The Flickr account this was taken from is no longer active so it's basically without provenance; perhaps that alone is reason to disqualify it--RDBury (talk) 09:07, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This photo is also available in an online album, apparently by the original author. Is a Sony DSC-N2 capable of taking this kind of photo without digital manipulation?
--Gyrobo (talk) 19:31, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for finding that. There is another picture of the same river in the collection where it appears more river-colored. It would seem rather odd to me for someone to post a couple hundred photos to the web and change the colors on just one of them for no apparent reason.--RDBury (talk) 07:38, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt this was adjusted after it was taken, I just suspect it was taken with some crazy settings. My photos sometimes come out a little crazily because I've used the wrong setting. The effect can be nice (as it could be said to be here) but it's not very encyclopedic. J Milburn (talk) 11:29, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this looks off, my first thought was about the unnatural blue colour as well. And the other image of the river suggests work on the picture. Hekerui (talk) 23:16, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Affable advice Convince us that water is that blue. Because the photo looks that saturated, apocryphal. Gut (talk) 23:19, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --I'ḏ ♥One 20:12, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]