Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/San Juan Panorama

San Juan Mountain Panorama edit

360^o panorama of the southwestern San Juans, photographed from the Gold Hill Ridge of the Telluride Ski Resort. Ridgeline annotation indicates the names and elevations of 43 peaks.

Metric-annotated version. Photo portion is now 800px high.

I think this image deserves FP status because it is a high-quality 360-degree panorama of a beautiful moutain range. It illustrates the great number of peaks in the San Juan Mountains, and the vistas available in their heights. The annotation names these peaks and gives their elevations without interfering with the image itself. The stitching of the panorama is pretty seamless IMHO. It is 4812 x 800 px, downsampled from ~24,000 x ~4,000. I took the pictures, stiched in Photoshop, and annotated in Illustrator. The image appears in the San Juan Mountains

self-nominate and support. - Debivort 03:05, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Good work! One thing you really should do is to include mountain heights in meters, too - when that is done, I'll support! --Janke | Talk 06:38, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Two sets of numbers would make parts of it look too cluttered and difficult to read 24.11.71.242 15:47, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not at all. Make one set white, the other yellow, or orange. No problem, there's room for both. Remember that the majority of people in the world use the metric system! --Janke | Talk 16:08, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agree with Janke. I will probably support regardless as it is a very good quality panorama, but it is typically americentric to not consider that there are other more widely used units of measurement outside the confines of the US. I'll try to keep it brief to avoid a rant. ;) I guess for the metric system to be included in the panorama/diagram, the annotations would have to be redesigned somewhat, assuming the author can be bothered and/or still has the original illustrator file to work with. I'd like to see that, however, as feet doesn't mean much to me either. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 18:49, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - Hello Diliff and Janke - I've made a metric version. Am working on uploading it now, but my wireless is down so I am relying on dial up. I've also increased the size of the actual photo so that the photo is now 800px high, rather than the whole thing being 800px high. Should be up at some point soon .... Debivort 03:14, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - Great work, thanks Debivort. And the more photo resolution, the better! While we're talking, would you mind telling us what camera/lens/panorama stitching program you used to create it? Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 06:18, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        All right. Having conquered slow connections and several accidental CMYK uploads, here is the higher-res metric version. The 11 portrait images comprising it were taken with a Nikon Coolpix 5600 (my normal Canon 20D was too bulky to take up the moutain), and stitched by hand in PhotoShop with manual geometric and color correction. Debivort 20:17, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support: just magical. Raven4x4x 09:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Jaw dropping not only for image quality but also for informational content. Near perfect. --Deglr6328 21:50, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Great work! Neutrality^talk
Strong Support, especially if a higher resolution/metric version is uploaded. Now this is the kind of encyclopedic image that impresses me. ~MDD 46 96 07:12, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support - outstanding - Adrian Pingstone 09:03, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support second. Outstanding. --vaeiou 21:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Thanks Debivert - all my requests have now been satisfied. ;) Great panorama and very informative! Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 00:59, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy promote. One of the best. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-29 01:03
Comment. There is a slighthly annoying 'white line' in the west part of the image, (go to Wilson Massif and look up), it looks like a meteor or something. Prehaps someone would be able to remove it? --203.54.74.167 04:05, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Jet contrail. Could be easily removed. I'll do so if the consensus builds up. Debivort 04:42, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - My vote is "leave it alone". In this case, it doesn't really affect the scene, but I don't think its distracting or annoying either. We've been through this a few times recently and I think the consensus is that unless it detracts significantly, it should be left unedited as it would be a misrepresentation of reality. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 06:28, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree--don't remove it. ~MDD 46 96 18:54, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Wholehearted support, now that there is metric info, too. Superbly encyclopedic! (Re. that contrail - removing it wouldn't be messing with reality, since sometimes you have them, sometimes not. Removing a mountain peak, well, that would be a "misrepresentation"... ;-) --Janke | Talk 14:20, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This is an excellent addition to the wikipedia! This kind of information really makes the wikipedia stand out as a very high-quality work, in some places far better than other works like the Brittanica Encyclopedia. drumguy⁸⁸⁰⁰ - speak? 19:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This image is too big to be opened in my browser (Netscape 7.0); I'm sure I'm not the only one with this problem. I think it is important to remember that Wikipedia needs to be accessible to users with older, lower-end systems too. It is not all that long ago that this image would have been heavily criticised for its size. Could we perhaps have an image about a quarter the size of this one? Denni ☯ 21:07, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- An alternate version can be provided for less capable browsers, but Wikipedia is mainly about articles, not images. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-30 04:23
Support - wow TomStar81 00:13, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. We need more FPs like this, with actual encyclopedic information in them (as opposed to just being pretty). —Cryptic (talk) 09:00, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support, I definately second this. Nice work! --Dschwen 12:12, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support metric one -- Chris 73 | Talk 14:17, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support very nice --rogerd 03:04, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:23, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice. --Snakes 02:24, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Very informational, and lovely photo too. Camerafiend 01:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I absolutely love it (the bottom is fantastic!) Renata3 05:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Definitely one of the best --Fir0002 07:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful subject, well photographed, but the annotation makes it for me - WP should have a lot more informative pictures like this. --Surgeonsmate 06:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. enochlau (talk) 15:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wikimol 19:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Great picture, very informative. Only complaint could be the border... is there a way to make that nicer? (smaller?) gren グレン 02:44, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image: Telluride Panorama annotated metric3.jpg Raven4x4x 05:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]