Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Chachani summit.jpg

Image:Chachani summit.jpg, not featured

•  Info Summit of Mt Fatima (highest on the photo), slightly above 6000m, and Mt Chachani (to the left, seems a bit lower), 6075m high, the highest of the three volcanoes above Arequipa, Peru, in october 2007. The path to reach the summit can be seen, going almost to the top of Mt Fatima first. Despite the altitude, the mountain is almost entirely free of snow at this time of year, mainly due to the dry climate of the area.
•  Info created, uploaded and nominated by Nattfodd --Nattfodd 18:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --Nattfodd 18:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose The changes in colour seem to harsh. Either the lighting was so strong and/or the image is underexposed. Pardon my ignorance, I do not know much about the area, but this I do not believe is up to FP quality. Was the sun very bright? (as in: did you have to wear sunglasses) Freedom to share 19:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, I had to (and my eyes were still sore all day long). Altitude + not being too far away from the ozone hole (according to the guide) makes for a really harsh light. I assume that by "change in colour" you mean changes of luminosity. The bright red and yellow colors are common in all this desert area (probably due to high levels of iron, but I'm no geologist). --Nattfodd 19:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Neutral Good shot! May if overexposed snow fixed can be FP (some weak sharpening can be good too). --Beyond silence 20:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't see any overexposition of snow. After a careful check, it turned out no more than a couple of isolated pixels were pure white. And the general brightness comes, well, from harsh sun on white snow. --Nattfodd 16:14, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
•  SupportGreat picture with much detail Muhammad Mahdi Karim 15:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose (Mais je peux changer d'avis ;)). Because of the strange artifacts on the bottom right area : it looks like an oil painting. Where does that come from ? I also find the dark shadow a bit disturbing. Otherwise, I like the colours a lot, they remind me the LucaG touch a little :) Benh 09:40, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Sorry, which artifacts are you talking about? I would believe this is simply what rocks would look like when slightly out of focus (despite f/20, focus was on infinity and those rocks were a few meters away from me). Sharpening was very light on this one, so I don't think it's responsible for this. --Nattfodd 10:39, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
    • when I look closely at the lower part area, I see small uniform surfaces, a bit like an impressionist paint (Don't know how to describe better). It's more obvious on the ice. Am I seeing things ?? Benh 10:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Neutral although an absolutely f***ing brilliant shot, technical quality is lacking. --Pumpmeup 03:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Jon Harald Søby 10:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Nice picture... congrats! —the preceding unsigned comment was added by Tomascastelazo (talk • contribs)
•  Oppose Harsh light. Lycaon 18:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Comment Among the many things photography does is to transport people to places where otherwise one would not go or is extremely difficult to do so. Technically speaking, one can find lots of fault in this and many photographs around here (but that is not my opinion in this one). It is easy to wait for "perfect" conditions in easy to get places, but that is not the case in this one. The merit of this photograph resides in the fact that it is a well composed, well exposed photograph with knowledge/encyclopedic value of a place that is not "around the corner". And BTW, good thing about including a human figure to convey scale and proportion...--Tomascastelazo 19:16, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --Karelj 17:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose Harsh lighting, too much contrast. Dori - Talk 01:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 2 neutral => not featured. Cecil 03:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Chachani summit edited.jpg, not featured

•  Info Here comes an edit with reduced contrast, as requested. I'm not sure I prefer it to the first image. --Nattfodd 15:43, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --Nattfodd 15:43, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose - Not all that interesting. Lacks sharpness. Rocket000 19:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
  • This is the summit of a 6000+ mountain, which also has the peculiarity of not having a glacier (to my knowledge, it's the only one having both of these characteristics). This photo also shows the almost complete path to the summit. Moreover, it's taken from more than 5500m, and I had to carry 4kg of photo gear from basecamp to get it. All in all, I'd say it is interesting enough. --Nattfodd 19:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
    • I didn't mean it like that, I just meant the picture itself is lacking "wow", I'm sure if I was there it'll be different. Rocket000 21:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose colours are washed out --Pumpmeup 03:49, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Not only the snow need correction? --Beyond silence 07:54, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Cecil 03:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)