Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Wadi Rum image2

Wadi Rum Image 2 edit

A sandstone monument in Wadi Rum

edit 1

I have made a seperate nomination for the other image

The image:

are of high quality (if we neglect the slight noise, which I don't this is a problem here)
are of high resolution
they look very good, and present the great natural qualities of wadi rum.

Article it appears in: Wadi Rum (there are other nice pictures there).

Nominate and support. - Eshcorp 17:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
support edit - I like the blue/orange contrast and the depth as conveyed by the haze, but it is blurry at full resolution. I sharpened, downsampled, degrained sky and distant layer of rocks, and did a minor level adjust. Debivort 18:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support edit 1. Much better than the original, but still hazy. I also wonder if the picture would be better with less sky shown. --Tewy 18:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Could be of higher quality and resolution. --Hetar 05:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As could anything else, but we need to keep our friend on dialup in mind too. And at some point conventional screens won't fit the image anyway. Are you sure you aren't talking about the lower-res edit instead of the 1800x1200 original? - Mgm|^(talk) 10:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support original. Edit lost resolution and clarity. What where they trying to edit anyway? - Mgm|^(talk) 10:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Was trying to sharpen the original by downsampling it => lower res. Also degrained a bit, but I doubt that could have been done at high resolution. Debivort 16:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The edit is worse than the original. Is it just me, or does the presence of an edit magically compell people to support one of the versions, just because they prefer it over the other version? --Dschwen 11:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Well for my vote at least, I actually did like the edit by itself, not just because it was better (as a weak support). --Tewy 22:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per hazyness and softness. HighInBC 14:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This is a nice, interesting landscape, but the image is unfortunately flawed. Noise is a problem (as in most landscapes), although this could be removed. Colour balance is also wrong, as I can't imagine a scene with purple tinged shadows. These issues could, in theory, be resolved but other issues such as softness would remain - its just too flawed for me. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 14:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Mikeo 22:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]