Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Chacaltaya Ski Resort

Chacaltaya Ski Resort

Original - The glacier was Bolivia's only ski resort and claimed to be the world's highest, the northernmost ski area in South America as well as the world's most equatorial. It melted in 2009.

Reason: High technical standard, is of high resolution and is among Wikipedia's best work.
Articles this image appears in: Chacaltaya
Creator: Ville Miettinen from Helsinki, Finland

Support as nominator --can dle •wicke 02:56, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose HDR is overdone. A single exposure would be more natural and encyclopedic. Cacophony (talk) 05:38, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Image size is very small. Personally, I like the HDR effect though --Muhammad(talk) 05:52, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes, the image is a little small, but the colors and texture are just beautiful and the EV is extremely high due to the strong connection to global warming - I daresay this is the best picture on Wikipedia on the subject. JovanCormac (talk) 06:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Just dropping in on the Featured Picture candidates, noticed this one, saw it didn't have nearly as many approving votes as it should. To Muhammad and JovanCormac: for some reason the copy of the image here on Wikipedia is not the full resolution. Perhaps the nominator should see about getting it replaced with the full 1600 x 1073 version from Flickr? --69.180.21.6 (talk) 06:39, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Not the right place for this type of artsy pictures. As said above HDR is overdone and doesn't add to the potential EV of the image. Alvesgaspar (talk) 07:31, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Over baked HDR is over baked and HDR. Noodle snacks (talk) 09:23, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very odd looking indeed. Most unpleasant to look at in the larger versions, like a strange painting! - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 10:31, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, and would probably oppose it being in the article too, except that there isn't an equivalent non-HDR image on commons to replace it with... Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 12:07, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Refugi Chacaltaya.jpg (of a different building) is better than this one. Chick Bowen 02:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose HDR is way overdone. Kaldari (talk) 15:38, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Very intriguing and valuable image, but the HDR is too strong. It kind of looks oversaturated, but not exactly...sort of too-real.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 21:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. May please the flickr crowd, but this has no place here. The image Chick Bowen links to is better suited and more intriguing even without the sensationalist HDR. --Dschwen 03:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, Noodle Snacks said it well. --Aqwis (talk) 08:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Did he? I found his statement more confusing than enlightening... Overbaked is fairly obviously a negative adjective, but 'HDR being HDR' has no intrinsic negative or positive connotations, I don't think. It all comes down to whether HDR tools have been used appropriately (although I guess we're mostly in agreement here). Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think he meant that it seems like HDR for HDR's sake - it makes the sky stunning, for example, but might distract from the encyclopaedic value of the image. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξ φ 13:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Or that he dislikes HDR no matter how it's done...? --jjron (talk) 14:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - That's how I would have interpreted it too, except that I know for a fact that he does use HDR tone mapping/exposure blending in most of his landscapes here... Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 19:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Ha, I wouldn't read into it too much, just a silly internet idiosyncrasy. Though, if something is obviously HDR, then it hasn't been well done. Noodle snacks (talk) 04:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose it is so exaggeratedly manipulated that is almost looks like a cartoon. Luca (talk) 20:24, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 03:54, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]