Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 12:47, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Sky looks over-polarized. Also, resolution is rather small. -- King of♥♦♣ ♠ 11:25, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support yes, the image looks good and is good quality but the sky looks over-polarized as King of Hearts commented. Mediran (t • c) 11:46, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeLooks HDRd and if so, poorly done. If not, then the glow around the edges of the rock is unnatural. I know how hard it is to photograph Arches or any rock formation under bright sun, and this one doesn't catch my eye. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 21:44, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Let me rewrite that. Instead of HDR, maybe it was simply a matter of curves being used to bring up the shadows. Either way, the colors are not correct, and the image seems to have been corrected for the shadows, but the highlights (the largest portion of the image) is completely overexposed now. Random people walking in the foreground is distracting. I know these places can get swamped with people, and I'd suggest a tripod and multiple photographs taken within a close timeframe to paint out any human beings (without changing the light too much)—though one or two people used as a scale is always a good idea, but they need to be posed in a more impressive manner than looking like they're out of breath, hiking. Again, I know how hard it is to photograph these places and to make them appear as impressive as they really are. In addition, the crop is really tight at the top and the focus seems to be on the person—a family vacation composition as opposed to one displaying the grandeur of the rock. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 21:50, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would say some sort of tonemapping is going on - there is haloing in the sky. JJ Harrison (talk) 15:01, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It really does look that way, doesn't it? I finally checked out these Commons FP comments and he says he used a polarizer and curves for increasing contrast, so the image might've been overexposed to begin with (1/60, ƒ/5 at ISO 100), but the end result looks like it was really tweaked. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 19:52, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Edit People in the foreground removed. Edit 1Ritik—Preceding undated comment added 13:31, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose edit -- image size significantly reduced from the original; JPEG artifacts and other technical deficiencies added. dllu(t,c) 18:31, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose edit per dllu, completely altered and degraded in every way. Besides, image is still overexposed. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 20:43, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
