Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Yosemite El Capitan.jpg

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Yosemite El Capitan

Reason

Pretty spectacular image I though. Buc 20:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposed caption

Southwest face of El Capitan from Yosemite Valley

Articles this image appears in

El Capitan

Creator

MikeMurphy

• Support as nominator Buc 20:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support. The integrity of the focus on the rockface itself—which is what we are drawn to—is flawless, which this layman found impressive. And the whole image I found spectacular. Unschool 05:50, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. I don't find it at all too spectacular. There are other spots from which better pictures of El Capitan can be taken (i.e. Tunnel View, Valley View). Those would show El Capitan together with a little more of Yosemite Valley than just a couple of trees. The picture here is just showing a lot of rock without anything around. It is just one of the millions of tourist snapshots taken in Yosemite Valley, nothing outstanding. Mikeo 22:29, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose per Mikeo. Cacophony —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cacophony (talk • contribs) 00:38, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose technically, looks quite good to me, but there are a few problems. We have nothing to gauge the distance between the foreground trees and the rock; the tiny trees at the top and the large ones at the bottom give us a weird forced perspective, as if the face was extremely tall, when it's more likely just some distance away. While some people would object to there being a climber in the shot, some kind of scale would also be good. Nice detail, though. Matt Deres 17:29, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. I respectfully disagree, Matt. I think that the trees at the top do a sufficient job of providing scale, not significantly different than would be gained by having a climber in the picture (though a climber on the face would make this, methinks, a more spectactular shot). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unschool (talk • contribs)

Perhaps I should have been more clear. The trees at the top do provide some sense of scale compared to the trees at the bottom, but the angle makes it impossible to say how much of that scale is due to the camera's distance from the rock face and how much is due to the height of the rock. A climber would give us a separate scale for the rock itself. And, yeah, look pretty cool too. Wonder if William Shatner is up to it... Matt Deres 23:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 08:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)