Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Bahá'í gardens by David Shankbone

Bahá'í Gardens Nomination

File:Bahá'í gardens by David Shankbone edit 1.jpg

Edit 1 - This is the edit to Bahá'í gardens by David Shankbone.jpg. It addresses issues with color, saturation, and sharpness. The perspective issue is so small, I couldn't change it.

File:Bahá'í gardens by David Shankbone edit 2.jpg

Edit 2 - Adjusted the saturation

Reason: Good Color, focus, and contrast. It also follows the rule of thirds and is beautiful.
Articles this image appears in: Bahá'í Faith, Shrine of the Báb
Creator: David Shankbone

Support as nominator --Andrewrp^Tally-ho! 15:21, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Very nice image. --Carioca (talk) 17:05, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Issues with perspective and sharpness. Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 18:35, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose edit 1, too. It's way too blue, and there are still sharpness issues. Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 19:38, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose edit 2. The colors are better, but after a direct comparison with the original, the image quality is severely degraded. Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 19:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - An excellent panoramic view angle of choice (for the photographer). - Damërung ^{...ÏìíÏ...}_{__ΞΞΞ_} . -- 20:35, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose certainly issues with the perspective. — Jake Wartenberg 22:29, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose I wish the image had been taken from a centered spot, but it clearly wasn't. Otherwise, a touch-up to make the colors more vibrant would be helpful, IMO. -- mcshadypl ^T ^C 23:48, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support edit 2 Much better. Looks great. -- mcshadypl ^T ^C 21:55, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support edit 1 A tad too blue, and a tad too saturated imho. Asphalt should be grayer, for instance. Suspect the real colors are somewhere in the middle. Large resolution makes up for a few shortcomings, though. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 13:24, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support whichever version is agreed to be most accurate. A great shot, slight off-center-ness notwithstanding.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 19:09, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Slightly off centre but otherwise great view. EV makes up for slight compositional faux pas. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 14:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The perspective issue seems minor in the thumbnail, but it's uncomfortable to view large; the softness is also a bit of an issue, although not major. For what it's worth, I think a new edit with saturation midway between the original and the first edit would be better than either the original or the edit.--ragesoss (talk) 19:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Edit 2 has the best colors (although I still oppose).--ragesoss (talk) 22:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reopened at request of nominator. More input on newest edit, please. wadester 16 21:22, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Spencer (talk · contribs). — Aitias // discussion 22:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose sorry but feels too tightly framed at the bottom and the sides for the subject. Mfield 01:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus MER-C 07:52, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]