Comment A whitebalance correction can be useful to take out some of the haze in landscapes like this. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 15:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Low quality. Unsharp, noisy, unfavourable lighting. Just uploaded and slammed into the article. I've pointed this out in the Old Wall nom before, but got no reaction from the nominator :-( --Dschwen 16:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, you can't. It is already unsharp, noise removal will only deteriorate the image further. --Dschwen 18:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Not really enough detail in the image, and my guess is not an ideal viewpoint. For landscapes I think we tend to have a higher standard requirement as they are easy to replicate. I think the lead image in the article is a better shot that this one.
Redmarkviolinist, you can't fix all the issues in this image. Do you really think all your images are that special? I'm not judge, jury and executioner, but I think you need to take a step back and look at the images as if they were somebody elses and not your own. Then maybe you can be more objective about how good they really are and whether they deserve to be featured. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 16:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I apologise for how that came out. When I said ""Do you really think all your images are that special?"" I actually meant it as a genuine question rather than intending to be rude, but the sentiment does remain. You do need to have a look at the quality of images that have passed FPC and ask yourself whether your images are truely in that league before submitting them. As you have found from your nominations, generally people haven't found them to be. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 22:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I must agree with the sentiment of Diliff's comment. It seems to me that to a certain extent you're nominating images as much to receive feedback as with any real expectation that they've got a genuine chance at becoming FPs. I'm sure some (but by no means all) 'voters' here are happy enough to provide feedback in this way, and wish to encourage potentially valuable contributors such as yourself. But on the other hand I don't think anyone wants to feel like you're spamming the page with nominations that have almost no chance, which is why I think some of the comments are becoming a bit harsher. 'Mr 100 FPs' Fir0002 has commented several times how the feedback he got in his early days at FPC greatly helped improve his photography at the time, and I'm sure good feedback from here has helped many others. As a start could I suggest that you perhaps slow down on the nominations. For example, look at the photos you've taken for a week or fortnight, decide on the one you think is the very best, and nominate that either here or at PPR. If you do so I'm sure you'll get some valuable feedback and a better overall reception. --jjron (talk) 08:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose Sky looks a tad washed out towards left of frame. Capital photographer (talk) 01:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose Horrific quality. Seems to have been saved in a low-quality jpeg. The plantlife on the left side look awkward. crassic![talk] 02:47, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with capital, the sky is washed out. It's not a great photo and some of the mountains could be in better focus. SpencerT♦C 17:09, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - technical quality is too low for a FP.--Svetovid (talk) 13:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not promoted --jjron (talk) 08:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg)