Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:McWay Falls at Julia Pfeiffer Burns State Park.jpg

File:McWay Falls at Julia Pfeiffer Burns State Park.jpg, not featured

Voting period ends on 27 Apr 2009 at 04:54:45

•  Info created, uploaded and nominated by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 04:54, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 04:54, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Bit tight crop, but otherwise great job! —kallerna™ 07:33, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose many parts are too dark and the water in the upper part is violet. Again I am sure that the original pic from the camera looks much better than this edited version --AngMoKio (talk) 09:20, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

• If it was taken with a DSLR, it is likely that there is no "original, non-edited version", only a RAW file, and RAW files are not pictures. Honestly, even the JPEG files that cameras output are edited by the camera software and are not any more "true" to the actual scene than a converted RAW file. --Aqwis (talk) 14:09, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

• RAW-Files are not pictures? A RAW-File is the (more or less) unedited, lossless-compressed image data. Anyway that was not my point, my point is that I think that something went wrong with the post-processing here (imho). --AngMoKio (talk) 14:26, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

•  Oppose The image description says the subject is McWay Falls, but the waterfall itself takes up just a tiny portion of the composition and suffers from an awkward length of exposure. --Notyourbroom (talk) 17:04, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

The description is changed. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:25, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 17:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Alt 1, featured

•  Support--Mbz1 (talk) 21:05, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
•  Neutral muuuch better! A wondeful landscape captured in a nice composition. Some parts are still quite dark though. Why did you use manual exposure with 1/500s? Maybe 1/500s was a bit short... --AngMoKio (talk) 21:16, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

The thing is that the dark parts are dark because of the shadows. If I used different settings I could have make them lighter alright, but then I would have overexposed the fall, foam and amazing color of the water, like it was overxposed here (not my image of course) File:Pfeiffer Big Sur State Park CA3.jpg. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:41, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

•  Support Much better composition imo. --Notyourbroom (talk) 02:31, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
•  Done I recategorized the image more specifically. --Notyourbroom (talk) 02:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
•  Support, though some parts are still quite dark. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 06:14, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Even better. —kallerna™ 10:53, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
•  Support charming view --Zakharii 12:10, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
•  Support--Avala (talk) 22:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 23:21, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose oversaturated. Lycaon (talk) 17:57, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Composition! The whole bay would be better. Tiago Fioreze (talk) 18:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The only way to take the whole cove is to take it from a helicopter. I'll make sure to hire one next time. :) --Mbz1 (talk) 19:31, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

result: 7 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 17:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)