Oppose both. Purple fringes on left mountaintop, not very sharp in full size. Panorama suffers from "3x255-syndrome" at right, i.e. overexposed, blown highlights. --Janke | Talk15:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose both. Per above; blown highlights are too big of a problem. Stitching is apparent in the sky of the second image. --Tewy21:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support, especially for the panorama -- there's more to a picture than pixelation, guys. This picture is exceptional. Robert 06:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC) *[reply]
Except that the first two criteria for FP are specifically that; 1:high quality and 2:high resolution. Item 1 immediately mentions JPG artifacts and graininess in the first sentence. Agree that this composition is very nice, and in a higher quality would be an FP. --Bridgecross14:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support I like the first one (the one on the top) better. Could have been better, but we are worse off not nominating it. | AndonicO12:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Both Very good picture. I like it a lot and specially since it's from Canada, it's even better. It's true a higher quality would have gain a full support. But the nominator forgot to mention that this also appears on the back of the old 1979 20$ bills of Canada. ;-) Arad12:17, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Purple fringes? There is a shadow there in the top image, and with the way ice and glaciers can reflect light, sometimes glaciers appear bluish and shadows can appear purplish. Does this image value to an article? This scene, as mentioned above, was once pictured on the Canadian $20 bill. It's an iconic scene, likely one that Banff National Park is best known for and adds a great deal to the article. The top image is high quality, with lighting that captures the reflections in the water. --Aude (talk) 20:36, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The "purple fringes" are an artifact of the camera lens & CCD. Rahter common in highligts on low-end digital cameras (and some better ones, too). --Janke | Talk12:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]