Original - Antelope-CanyonEdit 1 - Colors touched, noise reduced and sharpened. By Arad
Reason
It´s a great picture; technical not perfect, but even so really stunning in my opinion. It was the 7th place on Wikimedia-Commons "Picture of the year 2008" contest. I made it 2006 in the Antelope Canyon in the USA (Arizona).
Articles this image appears in
I belive, no article uses this picture, but it´s beyond question, that the picture is relevant for Wikipedia.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:58, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support duh. I'm surprised it's not already a FP Intothewoods29 (talk) 00:59, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not to rain on the parade, but aren't there already a couple photos of this same landmark which have been featured? -- Grandpafootsoldier (talk) 01:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sure I'll vote for this picture. Rj1020 (talk) 07:55, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The current FP is very similar and far superior in quality. The girl also provides scale. NauticaShades 22:40, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. per above. The current FP also gives more a feeling of space and largeness. Dengero (talk) 11:04, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a particularly spacious place [1]. deBivort 00:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Very striking image -- I prefer it to the other Antelope Canyon FPs, though it is quite grainy at full resolution. Pete Tillman (talk) 03:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's already a picture of Antelope Canyon there, but I'll leave it up to the people working on the article. SpencerT♦C 11:27, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
-- and there were two before, one of upper Antelope, one of Lower. I just replaced a weak foto with a stronger one. Agree it would be nice to have more variety, but....
I prefer the original edit -- more saturated color, more atmospheric. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 19:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
SupportWeak oppose Despite seeming a little soft, I prefer the composition of this image, and the way it conveys light and space certainly better than 2 of the other FPs. Mfield (talk) 04:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC) on further observation there's a dual edge to the rock as if the camera moved. Mfield (talk) 18:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I prefer the other FPs of the same place. smooth0707 (talk) 12:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Both (Preference for Edit) - It has a better composition that the current FP. --18:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arad (talk • contribs)
Oppose Both Poor clarity/definition - artefacts going all over the place. The exisiting FP has far superior techinical qualities - and for such a well photographed subject P&S quality (as in this photo) just doesn't cut it for FP level IMO --Fir0002 12:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not promoted MER-C 10:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
