34:
265:- It is a bit grainy.. at least in the sky, but not so bad. I know how it is, its almost impossible to completely eradicate. And.. it almost looks like the deforestation is happening from right to left.. like there are far fewer trees on the right, then you get patchier with dead stuff, then thicker with alive stuff. It's like its happening as you watch.. nice! Also, I think I used to think you were like 12, are you 17-18ish? The Year 11 stuff in your userpage probably threw me off, I'm used to junior, senior, etc
129:. Looks like there is a lot of colour noise (colour blotchiness) in the shadow detail. The image is pretty but a bit generic and doesn't really contribute significantly to the article as there is an obvious cutoff in density but there are still plenty trees elsewhere. I don't think the deforestation here is quite as dramatic in scale or distinct as the aerial shot of Bolivia in the article (although obviously that image is not good enough to be FP either). A deforestation FP can do better.
259:
194:
I don't doubt that the area was deforested, I'm just saying that it's really difficult to tell from this picture. Perhaps a before-and-after comparison would work better (not that that's possible). Or maybe a picture where the line of demarcation between unsullied-by-humans area meets the deforested
184:
Because if this weren't touched by humans, it would be a huge sclrophyll forest. You can see the forests on the mountains in the background. It hasn't lost a little bit of density, it has lost almost all of it. It is useless to most forest wildlife now. I wouldn't compare anything like this to
150:. While this is indeed a lovely pic, I don't see how this shows deforestation. Honestly, it looks like a lot of the open spaces in California (wide swaths of grass punctuated with random trees).
318:. The colour of the sky is just unnatural. I have never seen before a sky which changes colour so dramatically in a photo. Near the horizon it's reasonable pale, and at the top, extremely blue.
410:
390:
330:. Sky looks fake, photo is pretty but has little encyclopedic value. This region/spot of the planet is already way overrepresented here anyways. --
17:
236:
Man! How many of your images are featured? Geez im jealous. Anyway, I kinda support, it but I don't know where in an article you would use it.
396:
362:
350:
334:
322:
310:
294:
281:
271:
252:
240:
224:
189:
179:
142:
121:
105:
84:
68:
56:
138:
92:. I little bit too much grain for me, but the beauty and encyclopedic value of this image outweigh it in my opinion.
33:
380:
385:
203:
158:
118:
276:
195:
area to see the contrast. Otherwise, there's nothing to suggest that it's not naturally like this.
237:
81:
376:
218:
173:
99:
95:
42:
266:
186:
135:
114:
359:
347:
404:
319:
307:
210:
198:
165:
153:
65:
343:
331:
291:
258:
249:
77:
53:
130:
185:
California, what you described was probably forest at one stage as well. --
32:
45:. Clearly shows the effects of deforestation on the area
41:The spectacular view from McMillans Lookout in
8:
18:Knowledge (XXG):Featured picture candidates
248:- Wow, deforestation sure is beautiful!
37:View from McMillans Lookout, Benambra
7:
411:Ended featured picture nominations
64:. Great and encyclopedic photo. -
24:
257:
342:Very impresive image, nice job
76:. Another fantastic photo from
358:per Chowells and Howcheng. --
1:
117:13:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)--
397:07:24, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
363:13:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
351:12:28, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
335:09:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
323:10:54, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
311:17:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
295:10:45, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
282:07:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
253:05:37, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
241:20:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
225:04:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
190:00:24, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
180:16:46, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
143:16:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
122:13:12, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
113:per Nauticashades et al. --
106:10:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
85:10:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
69:08:30, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
57:07:36, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
28:View from McMillans Lookout
427:
38:
36:
290:Yes, I'm a 17 y.o --
43:Benambra, Victoria
39:
222:
177:
141:
418:
393:
388:
383:
279:
274:
269:
261:
223:
216:
213:
208:
201:
178:
171:
168:
163:
156:
133:
102:
426:
425:
421:
420:
419:
417:
416:
415:
401:
400:
391:
386:
381:
277:
272:
267:
211:
204:
199:
196:
166:
159:
154:
151:
100:
31:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
424:
422:
414:
413:
403:
402:
369:Not promoted
366:
365:
353:
337:
325:
313:
306:Impressive. |
304:Strong Support
300:
299:
298:
297:
285:
284:
255:
243:
231:
230:
229:
228:
227:
145:
124:
119:160.79.219.133
108:
87:
71:
59:
30:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
423:
412:
409:
408:
406:
399:
398:
395:
394:
389:
384:
379:
378:
373:
370:
364:
361:
357:
354:
352:
349:
345:
341:
338:
336:
333:
329:
326:
324:
321:
317:
314:
312:
309:
305:
302:
301:
296:
293:
289:
288:
287:
286:
283:
280:
275:
270:
264:
260:
256:
254:
251:
247:
244:
242:
239:
235:
232:
226:
220:
215:
214:
209:
207:
202:
193:
192:
191:
188:
183:
182:
181:
175:
170:
169:
164:
162:
157:
149:
146:
144:
140:
137:
132:
128:
125:
123:
120:
116:
112:
109:
107:
104:
103:
98:
97:
91:
88:
86:
83:
79:
75:
72:
70:
67:
63:
60:
58:
55:
51:
48:
47:
46:
44:
35:
29:
26:
19:
375:
374:
371:
368:
367:
355:
344:User:Fir0002
339:
327:
315:
303:
262:
245:
234:Weak Support
233:
205:
197:
160:
152:
147:
126:
111:Weak Support
110:
94:
93:
90:Weak Support
89:
78:User:Fir0002
73:
61:
49:
40:
27:
268:drumguy8800
187:liquidGhoul
127:Weak oppose
115:Bridgecross
52:Self Nom --
360:Moondigger
348:Hello32020
139:(Contribs)
405:Category
320:chowells
308:AndonicO
66:Darwinek
377:Nautica
340:Support
332:Dschwen
292:Fir0002
263:Support
250:Kaldari
246:Comment
238:Koolgiy
96:Nautica
82:S0uj1r0
74:Support
62:Support
54:Fir0002
50:Support
356:Oppose
328:Oppose
316:Oppose
148:Oppose
136:(Talk)
131:Diliff
101:Shades
372:6/4.5
200:howch
155:howch
16:<
382:Shad
219:chat
174:chat
80:. --
407::
346:.
212:ng
167:ng
134:|
392:s
387:e
278:T
273:C
221:}
217:{
206:e
176:}
172:{
161:e
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
