Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Notch Peak

Notch Peak edit

Original - Notch Peak, the most prominent feature in the House Range, Utah. Since the definition of 'cliff' varies, depending on the source, this is the tallest carbonate rock cliff in North America and/or the second tallest pure vertical drop in the United States (to El Capitan). Along with the cliff and Sawtooth Canyon below it, you can also see the layered Cambrian to Ordovician passive margin sequence, the pink Notch Peak Monzonite, and the white Lake Bonneville marls.

Reason: Nice picture of a striking, but little known, feature
Articles this image appears in: Notch Peak, House Range
Creator: QFL247

Alt 1 - Notch Peak, the most prominent feature in the House Range, Utah. Since the definition of 'cliff' varies, depending on the source, this is the tallest carbonate rock cliff in North America and/or the second tallest pure vertical drop in the United States (to El Capitan). Along with the cliff and Sawtooth Canyon below it, you can also see the layered Cambrian to Ordovician passive margin sequence, the pink Notch Peak Monzonite, and the white Lake Bonneville marls.

Alt 2 - Notch Peak, the most prominent feature in the House Range, Utah. Since the definition of 'cliff' varies, depending on the source, this is the tallest carbonate rock cliff in North America and/or the second tallest pure vertical drop in the United States (to El Capitan). Along with the cliff and Sawtooth Canyon below it, you can also see the layered Cambrian to Ordovician passive margin sequence, the pink Notch Peak Monzonite, and the white Lake Bonneville marls.

Support as nominator --Qfl247 (talk) 03:24, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - A nicely composed quite good shot. Unfortunately the lighting is poor and there is a what seems a lot of haze. This has robbed the subject of colour, contrast, and hence wow. Look here for what it looks like at a better time of day. - Peripitus (Talk) 00:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the first pic is hazy, but I don't agree the lighting is better in the pic you linked. As someone who has spent years in the area, the constant haze and angles the sun takes (north-facing feature) makes a picture of it challenging. What are your thoughts about the other two? It's such a unique and picturesque place, I feel obligated to promote it!--Qfl247 (talk) 00:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at the talk page. I've done a quick-and-dirty edit to show what could be done. With some judicious work the images could be much improved. In Alt 2 and Alt 3 I think that the main subject is rather overexposed - Peripitus (Talk) 23:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks --Qfl247 (talk) 23:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A polarising filter would get rid of most of the haze. Noodle snacks (talk) 05:55, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the haze basically aerial perspective? Circéus (talk) 19:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You get more haze when you further away from something, which you tend to be from an aerial perspective. However that is not what haze is. Haze is caused by particles in the air. Mie Scattering gives a mathematical explination of what is going on. This has some information as to why a polariser is helpful under 1346 ("if the incident radiation is unpolarized then the scattered radiation exhibits partial polarization, with the degree of polarization depending on the angle of observation."). Noodle snacks (talk) 23:20, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose all The quality could be better. -- mcshadypl ^T ^C 00:51, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 01:03, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]