167:
would look completely fake if the valley shadows were lifted up any more than they already do. Also, the focus is fine. It is actually a panorama of three 6 megapixel images taken with a Canon 10D and stitched vertically. With some overlap, that means around 12 megapixels. It just doesn't look at all blurry to me. Finally, the colours are reasonably natural - a warming filter was applied to the sky so the colours are slightly 'rose-tinted' so to speak, but aside from that, the colours look fine to me.
42:
34:
541:
464:
185:
I'm looking at your Zion Angels image, of course! Yes, the focus is fine, I removed the focus comment on a previous edit so I can't understand why it's still there. I stand on my colour and darkness comments because I still see an unnatural look that is impossible to explain in words. Be assured my
166:
What image are you looking at? ;) What do you mean a little too dark even allowing for the sunset? Sunsets almost always have bright skies and very dark foreground shadows due to the angle of the light. The scene is pretty well balanced under the circumstances, due to the use of the ND filter. It
485:
Are you responding to me? ;) I didn't submit this photo for FPC so I guess you should be talking to someone else. But I agree that it could do with some adjustment. I could go back to the original images but I'm not at my usual computer right now and that sort of thing is difficult right now.
405:, of course. I would prefer a version with a lower JPEG compression, as there are some visible artifacts, especially in the clouds and in the clouds/mountain transition (zoom in to see them clearly).--
515:
I'd support it - It is slightly desaturated without losing the sunset colours that the original has. It seems to have come too late in the FPC process though.... thanks anyway.
470:
I thought for a while on this one but couldn't decide either way. It's a good photo because of the difficulty of the capture (getting the nice exposure), but I agree with
129:
The valley appears a little too dark to me, but it may be my monitor: I'm using a different one than I usually do. If others have no problems with darkness, then
597:
157:-a little too dark (even allowing for the sunset), strange colours (again , allowing for the sunset), not great focus. Sorry to seem so negative -
17:
186:
comments are genuine and considered. But what does all this matter , I see you have support from everyone else at my time of writing this :-)
476:, it's oversaturated and looks fake. I would upload an edit but with your response to my other edits I think I'll leave it up to you. --
202:. Great - looks almost like it's been 3D computer rendered, such vibrant colours and caught with the perfect degree of natural light. —
219:
58:
214:
580:
568:
551:
528:
510:
499:
480:
457:
445:
433:
412:
397:
385:
373:
357:
343:
327:
298:
286:
269:
254:
238:
226:
190:
180:
161:
149:
137:
124:
121:
106:
75:
524:
495:
176:
474:
355:
199:
267:
231:
471:
352:
209:
378:
310:
425:
366:
278:
564:
340:
282:
263:
54:
454:
409:
203:
134:
118:
96:
41:
521:
492:
394:
187:
173:
158:
420:
322:
251:
33:
145:, although I would prefer it a little bit less saturated to give it a more natural look.
577:
548:
506:
442:
406:
235:
71:
37:
Zion Canyon at sunset in Zion
National Park as seen from Angels Landing looking south.
591:
560:
336:
146:
540:
477:
463:
295:
115:
89:
516:
487:
382:
168:
50:
53:. It's simply magnificent. Excellent composition and filter use. It appears in
319:
307:
247:
61:. Many other great shots are created by the same photographer is well.
504:
I've uploaded an adjusted version. Please tell me what you think. --
40:
32:
351:. It looks like the painted backdrop for a bad western.
294:. Like the colors and balanced exposure. Great Picture. --
114:
per nomination... I can't find the words to describe it! ~
8:
575:Promoted Image:Zion angels landing view.jpg
18:Knowledge (XXG):Featured picture candidates
7:
598:Ended featured picture nominations
24:
539:
462:
59:Graduated neutral density filter
1:
386:22:36, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
374:09:08, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
358:21:35, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
344:14:12, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
328:20:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
299:16:12, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
287:02:13, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
270:19:41, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
255:17:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
239:13:34, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
227:10:24, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
191:21:47, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
181:23:31, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
162:08:58, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
150:07:34, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
138:07:14, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
125:07:09, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
107:03:28, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
76:02:17, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
581:05:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
529:05:39, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
511:02:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
500:00:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
569:15:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
552:16:58, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
481:07:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
458:21:30, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
446:08:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
434:02:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
413:02:47, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
398:16:26, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
614:
234:So real; it looks fake! --
200:User:Vanderdecken/Support
453:Incredible picture. --
232:User:Kilo-Lima/Support
133:- a stunning picture.
46:
38:
277:, great composition.
44:
36:
28:Zion Angels Landing
379:User:Rogerd/Support
55:Zion National Park
47:
39:
527:
498:
432:
306:Beautiful image.
179:
605:
543:
519:
509:
490:
466:
429:
423:
371:
325:
317:
262:, impressive. -
224:
222:
217:
212:
188:Adrian Pingstone
171:
159:Adrian Pingstone
105:
101:
94:
88:
74:
45:adjusted version
613:
612:
608:
607:
606:
604:
603:
602:
588:
587:
547:, great image.
505:
427:
367:
365:. Beauticious.
323:
311:
220:
215:
210:
208:
103:
97:
90:
86:
70:
31:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
611:
609:
601:
600:
590:
589:
585:
572:
571:
554:
537:
536:
535:
534:
533:
532:
531:
460:
448:
436:
415:
400:
388:
381:Great image --
376:
360:
346:
330:
301:
289:
272:
257:
241:
229:
197:
196:
195:
194:
193:
152:
140:
127:
109:
79:
78:
30:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
610:
599:
596:
595:
593:
586:
583:
582:
579:
576:
570:
566:
562:
558:
555:
553:
550:
546:
542:
538:
530:
526:
523:
518:
514:
513:
512:
508:
503:
502:
501:
497:
494:
489:
484:
483:
482:
479:
475:
473:
469:
465:
461:
459:
456:
452:
449:
447:
444:
440:
437:
435:
430:
422:
419:
416:
414:
411:
408:
404:
401:
399:
396:
392:
389:
387:
384:
380:
377:
375:
372:
370:
364:
361:
359:
356:
354:
350:
347:
345:
342:
338:
334:
331:
329:
326:
321:
318:
316:
315:
309:
305:
302:
300:
297:
293:
290:
288:
285:
284:
280:
276:
273:
271:
268:
265:
261:
258:
256:
253:
249:
245:
242:
240:
237:
233:
230:
228:
225:
223:
218:
213:
205:
201:
198:
192:
189:
184:
183:
182:
178:
175:
170:
165:
164:
163:
160:
156:
153:
151:
148:
144:
141:
139:
136:
132:
128:
126:
123:
120:
117:
113:
110:
108:
102:
100:
95:
93:
84:
81:
80:
77:
73:
68:
65:Nominate and
64:
63:
62:
60:
56:
52:
43:
35:
29:
26:
19:
584:
574:
573:
556:
544:
467:
455:Ironchef8000
450:
438:
417:
402:
390:
368:
362:
348:
332:
313:
312:
303:
291:
281:
274:
259:
243:
207:
204:Vanderdecken
154:
142:
135:Zafiroblue05
130:
111:
98:
91:
85:. Amazing...
82:
66:
48:
27:
395:Camerafiend
49:Created by
525:(Contribs)
496:(Contribs)
421:Flcelloguy
177:(Contribs)
578:Raven4x4x
559:per nom.
549:Thryduulf
507:antilived
443:TomStar81
407:Eloquence
236:Kilo-Lima
72:antilived
592:Category
561:enochlau
393:. Nice.
337:Chris 73
246:Nice! --
147:Glaurung
557:Support
545:Support
478:Fir0002
468:Neutral
451:Support
439:Support
418:Support
403:Support
391:Support
363:Support
333:Support
304:Support
296:Dschwen
292:Support
279:Phoenix
275:Support
260:Support
244:Support
143:Support
131:support
112:Support
83:Support
67:support
522:(Talk)
517:Diliff
493:(Talk)
488:Diliff
383:rogerd
349:Oppose
174:(Talk)
169:Diliff
155:Oppose
51:Diliff
428:note?
369:Cobra
248:Janke
16:<
565:talk
472:Mark
353:Mark
341:Talk
252:Talk
92:Lord
69:. -
57:and
335:--
320:nni
264:Mgm
116:MDD
99:ViD
594::
567:)
520:|
491:|
441:--
426:A
339:|
250:|
172:|
122:96
119:46
563:(
431:)
424:(
410:*
324:☯
314:e
308:D
283:2
266:|
221:φ
216:ξ
211:∫
206:∴
104:»
87:«
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
