Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:CasaRinconada.jpg

Image:CasaRinconada.jpg, not featured

•  Info created by Charles Sauer - uploaded by Charles Sauer - nominated by Charlessauer --Charlessauer 01:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
•  Support --Charlessauer 01:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose not really sharp, weird light and unfortunate size. BTW, what happened to the EXIFs of your uploads? Lycaon 14:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose Size and sky coloration. Recommend EXIF, as images taken from point-and-shoots will sometimes be afforded mitigating circumstances. -- Ram-Man 21:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
•  Comment The size fits within the norms of featured picture rules and EXIFs are not required. Charlessauer 13:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
•  Comment The sky coloration is normal. Somehow I know that you've never been to this national treasure in the U.S.A. becuase of the comment about the sky. Not that that matters. This picture was taken at dusk with no filter. The sky looks different because it wasn't taken in the suburbs where the sky is polluted by automobile exhaust; it was taken in the "bad lands". I did not retouch this picture. Charlessauer 13:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
•  Comment There are so few pictures of Native American architecture, for instance Chaco Canyon, and there are no articles that include the ruins of Casa Rinconada. Charlessauer 13:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • You make many assumptions in those comments! First, the resolution guidelines is a minimum. For a relatively easy landscape shot, there is no reason why a high resolution image could not be supplied. Second, EXIF can have a positive effect, but the lack won't have a negative effect on outcomes. Third, atmospheric distortions are affected by temperature, which is why clarity is much higher in the winter. Also, I've been to plenty of remote areas, such as Alaska. Fourth, the very fact that you used no filter actually proves my point. A camera's sensor can see UV and it interprets it as blue. This is why digital cameras have such trouble matching the sky with what our eyes see and also why skies often look so bad. You may be used to it, but it still looks bad and has nothing to do with pollution. Lastly, you are confusing the value of this image with whether or not it should be a FP. It is merely a contributing factor. You can add this image to an article without it being a featured picture. -- Ram-Man 17:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  •  Comment Good point about the minimum: I'll think about adding a larger resolution image next time. Good point about the EXIFs. I am certain you have been to plenty of remote areas, and there is nothing wrong with the suburbs. . . Thanks for the tip about filters; although, I love this picture of mine. It looks great, by golly! I think I'll frame it and put it on my wall. Lastly, you should enter or re-enter some of your pictures of plants. Charlessauer 18:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Commons reviewers are among the pickiest art critics I've ever met. The kind of rigourous beatings that my perfectly good pictures take is what presses me to make even better work. My most popular image, the waterfall that was a POTY finalist, was criticized for noise, overexposure, and slight unsharpness. It looks spectacular when actually printed large and is hanging on my wall. I'm going to be off-wiki for a few days, so we'll see about more nominations when I have time. -- Ram-Man 19:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 11:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC) (Rule of the 5th day)