Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Grand Canyon Horseshoe Bend.jpg

File:Grand Canyon Horseshoe Bend.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jun 2017 at 14:57:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Grand Canyon Horseshoe Bend.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Grand Canyon Horseshoe Bend.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/United States
•  Info all by Der Wolf im Wald -- Wolf im Wald 14:57, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- Wolf im Wald 14:57, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Wonderful place, great quality. Yann (talk) 15:18, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
•  Support — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 15:26, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose Great - except of the unsharp bottom. That spoils it. --Milseburg (talk) 16:19, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Jee 16:52, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Daphne Lantier 19:37, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- 20:28, 29 May 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colin (talk • contribs) 01:58, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
•  Support I'm at a loss as to how you get such impressive pixel-level sharpness... Anyway, great image, as usual. Textbook composition -- Thennicke (talk) 02:36, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

• Update: I'm no longer at a loss - I've been using too high a sharpening radius :D -- Thennicke (talk) 10:15, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

•  Support I'm fine with the bottom; stop down any further and using a 50mm prime on a 5DS R would have been pointless. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:37, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 06:00, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Milseburg. The unsharp foreground surely adds nothing to the picture; it only subtracts from it, and is in my opinion disqualifying. If you crop it out, I will support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:19, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

• I think the foreground does add to the image, even if it is unsharp (since the foreground is not the subject that should be irrelevant anyway. Also, per Peulle below, it's impossible without focus stacking). The reason the inclusion of the foreground is important IMO that it allows the curve of the river and rocks to be uninterrupted. One of the hardest things to do is avoiding those kinds of "cuts" in an image and I suspect that's what Thomas was going for here -- Thennicke (talk) 09:47, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks Thennicke! That was exactly my intention. :-) Regards -- Wolf im Wald 14:55, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

•  Support I see the point made by Milseburg and Ikan Kekek, but since the foreground curves upwards to the right, cropping it out would mean cutting off the river: no fix possible without focus stacking. Main subject is clear and sharp, the level of detail is amazing for such a large photo, you can even see birds in the sky clearly outlined and power line towers in the distance. Slight noise but hardly noteworthy given the high resolution.--Peulle (talk) 07:40, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Per Peulle. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 11:55, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 13:48, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Nice and that resolution! Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 11:15, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Love the scale provided by the guy on the cliff. Daniel Case (talk) 15:25, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --mathias K 19:24, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- Pofka (talk) 08:14, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 08:39, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
•  Support -- Llez (talk) 11:08, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --g. balaxaZe★ 15:16, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Jee 02:05, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural/United States