Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Horseshoe Falls 2 Mt Field National Park.jpg
- Reason
- Already featured on the Turkish Wikipedia.
- Articles this image appears in
- Mount Field National Park, Horseshoe Falls (Tasmania)
- Creator
- Noodle snacks
- Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 09:19, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
- Support, nice artistic shot of the falls but still has good EV. I would have cropped the bottom of it more though, it feels a bit empty and unbalanced at the bottom. You must have jumped in to get this shot! Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:44, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Compositionally a great shot, but I feel the exposure was too long and it looks a bit weird in the foreground with the blurring of the water there. You can go TOO long with a shot like this and I think this is a prime example, you've lost all visual representation of actual water due to the exposure. — raeky (talk | edits) 14:25, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose . Unfortunately, I am inclined to agree with Raeky's assessment. Something like a 10s exposure might have been perfect. As it stands, it doesn't look much like water anymore. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 20:54, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
- I understand your point. Based on my own experimentation/experiance I'd bet that you'd find it difficult to tell the difference between 5 seconds and 30. There are strong differences in the sub 1 second range (contrast 1/5th vs 1/3rd), and minor ones from 1-5 seconds (1.6, 8). This only applies to waterfalls, the results vary much more with the sea. In the available light, same aperture, no ND and an ISO boost to 400 the exposure for this shot would still be around 2 seconds. I'd like to do a geometric progression of shutter speeds for a shot at some point for comparison purposes. Noodle snacks (talk) 10:36, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
- I'll bow to your greater experience with waterfalls. My experience with water movement/shutter time is limited to waves coming in to shore. :) --Dante Alighieri | Talk 16:37, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
- I think the exposure is fine for the waterfall, but the water flowing into the pool of water in the foreground it was way to long, probably would of looked better to have a much faster exposure so you still get the sense of water in the foreground instead of foggy mist. Maybe two images one faster exposure and longer for the waterfall then making a composite. to bring the best of both exposure together. But thats my opinion that the foreground just looks way to fake/weird with that longer exposure. Amazing shot though. — raeky (talk | edits) 17:32, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
- I understand your point. Based on my own experimentation/experiance I'd bet that you'd find it difficult to tell the difference between 5 seconds and 30. There are strong differences in the sub 1 second range (contrast 1/5th vs 1/3rd), and minor ones from 1-5 seconds (1.6, 8). This only applies to waterfalls, the results vary much more with the sea. In the available light, same aperture, no ND and an ISO boost to 400 the exposure for this shot would still be around 2 seconds. I'd like to do a geometric progression of shutter speeds for a shot at some point for comparison purposes. Noodle snacks (talk) 10:36, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
- Support - Nice use of Av and Tv. --TitanOne (talk) 03:00, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose, I agree with the comments above, the appearance of the foreground could easily mislead people as to the nature of the water, limiting encyclopaedic value. Guest9999 (talk) 16:15, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- Reluctant oppose per above. I'd suggest nominating at Commons:Commons:FPC - I'd definitely support it there. Time3000 (talk) 18:10, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- Weak oppose - Very artistic, but the foreground is confusing. - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 22:13, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Not promoted --Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:45, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
