Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Mt Hotham summer scenery

Mt Hotham Summer Scenery

I might have to take up Dschwen on his suggestion for a round the world trip. I know this is poor timing but Hotham is such a beautiful place and I like this photo.

Support Self Nom. --Fir0002 www 06:10, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support yet another great picture by fir, even though it's a busy scene (which is normally a negative) and the red pole is distracting the fact that it's a wide shot compensates for that by giving you a wider range of view. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 06:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I hate to rain on the party but this pic, although technically good, is just plain boring. Also the red pole spoils the pic completely. Please excuse my forthrightness! - Adrian Pingstone 08:14, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I actually think the red pole is an integral part as to my mind they typify an alpine road. You know you're on a road where it snows when you get those red poles. But that's just my perception of it... --Fir0002 www 09:55, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't have known that was a snow pole (not needed in England!) but my opinion on the pic doesn't change - Adrian Pingstone 17:43, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, there are lots of snow poles on the high routes over the Pennines. Halsteadk 22:00, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I live in Bristol where we rarely see snow nowadays - Adrian Pingstone 22:17, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Due to low encyclopedic value. - and it is a really boring shot. A nice sky doesn't make it a featured picture. Mikeo 10:12, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great detail and vivid colours. Eric B ( T • C • W ) 10:55, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I recommend that world trip Fir. :) Its not a bad photo but I'm opposing it for two reasons. One is that you can't keep nominating very similar photos that don't contribute SIGNIFICANTLY to an article, and two, it looks like you've overcooked it with processing. There are haloes around parts of the image, particularly the building on the right side of the frame, and it appears to be posterised in the sky. It looks as though you've used a polariser but then, due to the extremely wide angle of the panorama, you've not had an even amount of polarisation between frames so you've painted the sky in photoshop. Apologies in advance if I'm wrong, but I don't see how you could have ended up with such a deep sky and fluffy white clouds without a polariser, and you couldn't have been able to polarise the sky evenly across an almost 180 degree view. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:30, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for the same reasons as Diliff. I don't think the photo captures the beauty of the area particularly. chowells 12:00, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Diliff. Just not intriguing in the same way many of your other photos are (and FPs should be). bcasterline t 12:09, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Looks tilted to me. --Janke | Talk 12:30, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Loving that blue sky, awesome! However, I dont really understand the point of the photo and what it's purpose is in an encyclopedia, sorry. - Aled D 19:20, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Fir, you've set too high of a standard :p -Ravedave 20:07, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, Great scenery -- BWF89 01:43, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Agree with the above, and you are stretching Mt. Hotham as a subject... ..at least for FP --Dschwen 07:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Tilted, but more importantly, doesn't appear to add significantly to any articles. It might work at FPC on Commons though. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:44, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support The depth is breathtaking. Bertilvidet 19:02, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Composition. asnatu 21:13, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Boring, generic, unencyclopaedic oicture. say1988 22:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The red pole is very distracting! The image doen't seem to have a lot of value in its article.--Pharaoh Hound 12:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted ~ Veledan • Talk 18:24, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]