41:
387:
I agree, and I d think that it's better than at least some of the images in those articles, but I felt that it was better to let others make the decision as to whether they agreed with me, and have them choose to add it, as neither page is very active. However, there is no doubt whatsoever that it is
347:
regarding it being added to article(s). Looks pretty spot-on to me. I can't see anything wrong with the stitching, and the image quality is top notch. I don't think there should be more sky or none at all. You need at least some so that you have a feel for the horizon level, and you don't need too
231:
I don't think anyone who cares about images uses Auto-Levels. I clicked on it for a composition below to make a point that even a single mouse click improved it a bit but as I said below, I didn't keep it with the Auto-Levels changes. Levels would solve the under exposure in this image though...
194:
Indeed, not all should be, but the most striking and enticing images are those. As people has pointed out with other images, an image needs to draw the viewer in and make them want to know more about the subject, so in that regard the ones with more colour and contrast taken at dusk and dawn are
144:
I think a levels adjustment is required for this particular image but what I should have said was, while the colours are accurate for the time of day this image was taken, some of the finest images of
Arizona I have seen are taken around dusk or early in the morning when colours are richer and
360:
to the article, among other things. Thats not to say you should jam the image in where it doesn't belong, but it should really have a home before its nominated here. It isn't for one of us to decide whether it is better than existing images, its for all of the contributors to the article. We
305:
Um, as a photographer this is emrarrasing... I meant overexposed. Colour and contrast are less and brightness a tad too high than the rest of the image which is perfectly exposed. But anyway, there proper exposure is academic... if it looks good and is accurate, I'm supporting it.
286:
exposed. If the camera had prioritized for the central darker portion of the image as you suggest (unlikely anyway as this is a stitched image so the center isn't camera center and in addition it was likely manual focus and manual exposure) then this would lead to it
263:
over exposed though. Given auto exposure and auto focus tend to work together, I'm thinking the camera put the focus on the middle to top of the frame most and metering prioritised those parts exposing them right but has slightly
129:
Limited colour? Have you ever been to
Arizona? The greens of the river double the number of colours from typical Arizona fare =) Also, on Exposure - that's exactly what Arizona looks like. IT's a desert. It's all very bright.
204:
171:
157:
139:
124:
189:
23:
437:
277:
254:
241:
454:
315:
300:
226:
477:
405:
378:
329:
425:
320:
If I recall my time in arizona correctly, the sun is usually hairly high, so things near you reflect more of the sun back at you. This makes things nearer you look lighter.
107:
148:. However I will concede it's better than existing image. I suppose it was more an artistic oppinion however so I have corrected my vote. I'll support though.
34:
162:
Ah, aye, I take your point now =) It looks "right" to me - after all, dusk and sunrise are fairly fleeting parts of the day - but that be your view =)
495:
519:
282:
I think you need to re-sit
Exposure 101 or maybe slow down a little and think about it, there is no way that the bottom corners of this image are
222:. Looks like a faithful representation to me (as far as i can remember from my own visits). Autolevels isn't the answer to everything... --
509:
433:
per above. I've never been there (yet...) so I'm trusting the others who reassure that the perspective and exposure are accurate.--
353:
348:
much, since you can see already that it is essentially lots of blue sky and not much else. That said, slightly more sky couldn't
514:
17:
401:
325:
311:
273:
237:
200:
185:
180:
Arizona desert FPs must come from those times would severely misrepresent what the
American desert looks like.
167:
153:
135:
120:
103:
259:
The dam, cliffs in top right, sky and the cliff faces in the center of the image are fine.Bottom corners look
374:
115:
Exposure flaws, limited colour, small amount of sky is a tad distracting, should be a small amount more.
397:
321:
307:
269:
233:
196:
181:
163:
149:
131:
116:
99:
33:
396:, as the only panorama we have of it, so I've gone ahead and added it to that page as a start.
146:
352:
the composition, but not much is needed. Shomaker's
Holiday, as per the discussion on the
176:
Anywayy, thinking about it, while dawn and dusk photographs have their place, to say that
8:
89:
450:
469:
371:
296:
491:
434:
422:
80:
48:
76:
52:
503:
356:, I think that it does need to already be in an article to establish that it
56:
446:
291:
exposing the lighter shades in the bottom corners. This is basic exposure.
251:
223:
463:
393:
366:
292:
72:
487:
418:
66:
A beautiful panorama giving the context of the dam in a stunning way.
40:
417:
A great shot, a lot of detail and - yes, quite a bit of "wow". --
145:
landscapes seem to have more depth. Here's an example off Flikr:
195:
perhaps a bit stronger in that regard, but this is good too.
24:
Knowledge:Featured picture candidates/Glen Canyon Dam
501:
39:
520:Featured picture nominations/April 2008
14:
502:
484:Promoted Image:Glen Canyon Dam MC.jpg
18:Knowledge:Featured picture candidates
30:
510:Ended featured picture nominations
31:
531:
75:. Could Reasonably be added to
69:Articles this image appears in
13:
1:
268:over exposed the foreground.
515:Featured picture nominations
7:
462:great picture, well done. —
10:
536:
438:21:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
426:20:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
406:16:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
379:16:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
330:16:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
301:15:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
278:07:16, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
255:02:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
242:01:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
227:16:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
190:16:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
172:08:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
158:01:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
140:14:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
125:11:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
108:10:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
361:shouldn't feature it and
354:talk page of the criteria
496:12:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
478:22:56, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
455:17:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
316:01:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
205:01:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
88:Christian Mehlführer,
59:
43:
365:find a home for it.
308:Capital photographer
270:Capital photographer
234:Capital photographer
197:Capital photographer
150:Capital photographer
117:Capital photographer
97:Support as nominator
398:Shoemaker's Holiday
345:Conditional Support
322:Shoemaker's Holiday
182:Shoemaker's Holiday
164:Shoemaker's Holiday
132:Shoemaker's Holiday
100:Shoemaker's Holiday
90:commons:User:Chmehl
60:
377:
250:in this image. --
22:(Redirected from
527:
445:Excellent shot.
369:
232:manual levels.
27:
535:
534:
530:
529:
528:
526:
525:
524:
500:
499:
81:Glen Canyon Dam
49:Glen Canyon Dam
38:
35:Glen Canyon Dam
29:
28:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
533:
523:
522:
517:
512:
481:
480:
457:
440:
428:
411:
410:
409:
408:
382:
381:
342:
341:
340:
339:
338:
337:
336:
335:
334:
333:
332:
318:
248:under exposure
217:
216:
215:
214:
213:
212:
211:
210:
209:
208:
207:
110:
93:
92:
86:
83:
77:Colorado River
70:
67:
64:
53:Colorado River
37:
32:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
532:
521:
518:
516:
513:
511:
508:
507:
505:
498:
497:
493:
489:
485:
479:
476:
473:
472:
468:
465:
461:
458:
456:
452:
448:
444:
441:
439:
436:
432:
429:
427:
424:
420:
416:
413:
412:
407:
403:
399:
395:
391:
386:
385:
384:
383:
380:
376:
373:
368:
364:
359:
355:
351:
346:
343:
331:
327:
323:
319:
317:
313:
309:
304:
303:
302:
298:
294:
290:
285:
281:
280:
279:
275:
271:
267:
262:
258:
257:
256:
253:
249:
245:
244:
243:
239:
235:
230:
229:
228:
225:
221:
218:
206:
202:
198:
193:
192:
191:
187:
183:
179:
175:
174:
173:
169:
165:
161:
160:
159:
155:
151:
147:
143:
142:
141:
137:
133:
128:
127:
126:
122:
118:
114:
111:
109:
105:
101:
98:
95:
94:
91:
87:
84:
82:
78:
74:
71:
68:
65:
62:
61:
58:
57:Page, Arizona
54:
50:
46:
42:
36:
25:
19:
483:
482:
474:
470:
466:
459:
442:
430:
414:
392:addition to
389:
362:
357:
349:
344:
288:
283:
265:
260:
247:
246:There is no
219:
177:
112:
96:
44:
394:Glen Canyon
73:Glen Canyon
504:Categories
471:discussion
435:HereToHelp
375:(Contribs)
390:excellent
45:Original
460:Support
447:Sumanch
443:Support
431:Support
415:Support
252:Dschwen
224:Dschwen
220:Support
113:Support
85:Creator
79:and/or
51:on the
464:αἰτίας
372:(Talk)
367:Diliff
293:Mfield
63:Reason
47:- The
488:jjron
419:Janke
284:under
266:under
261:under
55:near
16:<
492:talk
451:talk
423:Talk
402:talk
363:then
358:adds
350:hurt
326:talk
312:talk
297:talk
289:over
274:talk
238:talk
201:talk
186:talk
168:talk
154:talk
136:talk
121:talk
104:talk
388:an
178:all
506::
494:)
486:--
453:)
421:|
404:)
370:|
328:)
314:)
299:)
276:)
240:)
203:)
188:)
170:)
156:)
138:)
123:)
106:)
490:(
475:•
467:•
449:(
400:(
324:(
310:(
295:(
272:(
236:(
199:(
184:(
166:(
152:(
134:(
119:(
102:(
26:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
