Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Iquazu panorama

Foz Do Iguaçu Waterfalls Panorama edit

Panoramic picture of Foz Do Iguaçu Waterfalls located on (or around) the Brazil/Argentina border, they are considered one of the 'top' waterfalls. From the article:

The water falling from Iguazu in peak flow has a surface area of about 1.3 million square feet whilst Victoria in peak flow has a surface area of over 1.8 million Square Feet (Niagara has a surface area of under 600,000 square feet). Victoria's annual peak flow is also greater than Iguazu's annual peak (9.1 million litres per second versus 6.5 million. Niagara's annual peak flow is about 2.8 million), though in times of extreme flood the two have recorded very similar maximum water discharge (well in excess of 12 million litres per second. Niagara's all-time peak was about 6.8 million). Surprisingly, Niagara discharges the most water per year as its water flow does not vary greatly. Iguazu and Victoria fluctuate enormously in their flow rate, and can almost disappear in the dry season. Mist rises between 100 and 500 feet from Iguazu's Garganta del Diablo, and over 1,000 feet above Victoria (sometimes over 2,000 feet).

The picture is located in the Iguazu Falls article and was taken by Giacomo Miceli on 2006/06/17. It has been released to the public domain by the author.

Nominate and support. - Gammell 01:15, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment.This image is relatively enyclopedic and relatively aesthetically pleasing (and has a free license, high resolution, accuracy, etc). As for quality. The sharpness of detail is average, the highlights are fairly blown. The crop is a litte off because a majority of the river in the foreground is missing, and the way the river runs off to the far right contrasted with the shadowy area in the far left seem unbalanced. I want to throw this image through photoshop and see if the color balance, shadow/highlights can be adjusted. --Andrew c 01:54, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I too was a bit disappointed that the bottom of the image cuts off, but this is a very impressive photo and if there is any foreground, it probably is not in focus since the majority of the rest of the photo is. drumguy8800 C T 07:09, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Blown out highlights, i.e. loss of detail in water, also composition could be better, not as cut off. --Janke | Talk 07:59, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose. The blown highlights are too much.
Oppose. Nice scene but not the best composition by any means. It is cropped too heavily on both the top and bottom, and although I have no idea if the viewpoint was the only choice available, I feel as though there is room for improvement there. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I couldn't do anything for the cropping, but I adjusted the color and highlights, see edit 1.--Andrew c 15:56, 5 October 2006 (UTC)Not workable, poor crop, blown highlights. same as above.--Andrew c 20:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Overblown water, a bit hazy. HighInBC 19:35, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Blown highs, seems too "crowded". --Dante Alighieri | Talk 00:02, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, sadly, per Diliff. --jjron 13:52, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted. howch e ng {chat} 18:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]