Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Mount Everest as seen from Drukair.jpg

Image:Mount Everest as seen from Drukair.jpg, not featured

• 
  Alternate 1
  After rotation, cropping, levels adjustment, denoising, and color balance
• 
  Alternate 2
  After rotation, cropping, levels adjustment, denoising, and color balance
• Existing Turkish FP of Mount Everest
  Existing Turkish FP of Mount Everest
• 
  another existing FP of Mount Everest

•  Info created by shrimpo1967 - uploaded by Russavia - nominated by Russavia -- Russavia (talk) 18:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
•  Support -- Russavia (talk) 18:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
•  Support My first reaction when I saw this image was "wow". Leo Johannes (talk) 18:23, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose Noisy, lack of contrast and above all tilted. Lycaon (talk) 19:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose Tilted, boring composition (50% of the picture consists of unspectuclar blue sky), lack of contrast, vignetting --Simonizer (talk) 19:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose I consider the contrast as the biggest problem here. --Aktron (talk) 14:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Same reaction as Johannes --Gonzalo Rivero ><> (talk) 16:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
•  Neutral Contrast, vignetting and horizon tilt (at the cost of a slightly smaller crop) could be fixed, I presume. -- Klaus with K (talk) 11:34, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I've tried my hand at editing the thing and provided our existing Everest FP as comparison. The shot was in here; the camera settings just weren't very skilled at handling a snow capped peak against a blue sky. Durova (talk) 22:56, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

•  Comment An improvement certainly, but I feel the contrast is now on the harsh side. I know it is difficult through a plane window. -- Klaus with K (talk) 11:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

• Agreed about the contrast. I tried about ten different approaches with the histogram including different crops and automatic settings. This is where it wanted to go, but I wound up manually adjusting the foreground clouds and the background. Noticed the two existing FPs along the way. This has the advantage of a wider crop, but I'm uncertain whether the shortcomings make up for it. I'll abstain from the voting; mainly wanted to see the potential inside that original nom. Durova (talk) 16:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

•  Oppose I like the composition, but has too much technical problems. Maybe a polarized filter would have helped for the contrast (I don't know). --S23678 (talk) 15:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
•  Neutral The quality is actually quite remarkable for the conditions under which it was taken. I created version that falls between the original and Durova's, but in the end if the information is not in the photo you can't bring it out with Photoshop. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 09:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 2 neutral => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 15:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC)