Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/MtHoodViewFromAboveCrop

Early Summer Aerial View of Mount Hood

Edit 1, colors subtly remapped. Auto levels with minor clipping allowed and used this time instead of unique curve for each image. EVs manually set in Hugin because its photometric optimizer kept turning good highlights into blown.

Reason: Mt. Hood is the second most climbed mountain over 10,000 feet in the world [1]) and it's very hard to find decent photos of its terrain, so this revealing panorama should be very encyclopedic, especially to anyone interested in mountains. For the general audience it shows neat phenomena such as volcanic activity and rock fall and is generally an interesting image viewed up close (would make a nice puzzle!). Quality is pretty good, there are some seams but they're well hidden and almost unavoidable anyway for this kind of picture. Main worry for me is the noise in the shadows.

Please, do not get the impression that this is a shameless plug for the company that took the photos. For one thing I'm actually a contractor, for another I consciously avoided using our fancy expensive physical DRM protected software to assemble the pictures because I knew that the result wouldn't be as good as Raw Therapee + Hugin + my manual work. So if anything I'm committing disgrace.
Articles this image appears in: Mount Hood
Creator: Ben_pcc with individual pictures taken by Urban Robotics.

Support as nominator --Ben pcc (talk) 20:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - no evidence of permission, blown highlights. You have the RAWs, so you should tone map this. MER-C 08:43, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per MER-C, assuming it is a satellite image. Satellite images have awkward angles anyways, so I'd oppose for its composition. Zoo Fari 16:37, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - It's not a satellite image, it's taken from airplane flying a scant half kilometer above the peak. I know it's unusual, but there aren't many featured pictures of this kind (and none by Wikipedia members) so I thought it might interest. Personally, I think that the biggest weakness of this image is that you really have to get close and spend some time viewing it to appreciate it; thumbnail and even 1024 wide preview are nothing special; it's not like you can see rockfall or volcanic smoke at those scales y'know. Anyway, colors remapped, permission is pending (would it be appropriate to suspend? I'm not sure how necessary formal permission is since I'm one of them, but anyway it's pending.). -Ben pcc (talk) 22:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Detailed at full size, but I really can't make head or tail of what I am looking at. I think something at 45 degrees or similar would give a much better sense of scale and height. We do need more aerial photography, that said. Noodle snacks (talk) 08:29, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
oppose per noodle snacks. de Bivort 20:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:44, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]