Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Aurora Australis (icebreaker) berthed in Hobart under a rainbow.jpg

File:Aurora Australis (icebreaker) berthed in Hobart under a rainbow.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 May 2012 at 12:23:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Aurora Australis (icebreaker) berthed in Hobart under a rainbow.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Aurora Australis (icebreaker) berthed in Hobart under a rainbow.jpg

•  Info created by Edoddridge - uploaded by Edoddridge - nominated by Edoddridge -- Edoddridge (talk) 12:23, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Support EV is high because it shows relative sizes of Australian and French vessels with yachts. -- Edoddridge (talk) 12:23, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose Could remove my oppose but you should correct these things: curved horizon, vertical distorion, tilt, and reduce a bit the CAs. Sky is very noisy too. But it is a very stunning image. --Paolo Costa (talk) 16:15, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

   Comment Thanks for the feedback; it can be difficult to see flaws in one's own work. I've straightened the horizon, adjusted the tilt and applied noise reduction to the sky. Unfortunately, I can't find the chromatic aberration you describe; where is it? Edoddridge (talk) 00:19, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

  You can see them on the poles (don't know the correct name of it) of the yachts on the right side. Also some minor unimportant CAs on other places. Being a stitched panorama, I think you forgot to remove CAs on the last image on the right. Or maybe your camera only showed CAs on that image. It's gonna be tough to remove; maybe you should leave it this way. --Paolo Costa (talk) 03:06, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

  I don't think it is worth worrying about personally. I think the image needs to be brightened up by a bit though. JJ Harrison (talk) 23:13, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

  Agree with JJ, leave the CAs. One last thing: the ship looks very saturated. If you are going to retouch the image once more, then you could reduce saturation a bit on some areas. Then I will support. --Paolo Costa (talk) 06:31, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

  Thanks JJ and Paolo. I've bumped the exposure up 0.3EV for the sky and 0.5EV for the rest and desaturated the non-sky sections a bit. I think they were excellent suggestions! Cheers. Edoddridge (talk) 12:05, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

  No problem,  Support --Paolo Costa (talk) 14:14, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

•  Oppose stunning, but too noisy Tomer T (talk) 16:17, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

   Comment Thanks for the feedback. Is the newer version any better? Edoddridge (talk) 00:19, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

•  Support much better now. Tomer T (talk) 08:37, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Support I was thinking only last week, riding my bike past, that I needed to take a shot somewhat like this. I think you got lucky with the rainbow though. :) JJ Harrison (talk) 12:31, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

  I certainly did. The only downside was getting a drop of rain on my lens that I had to photoshop out four times; luckily it was in the sky and dead simple to remove. Edoddridge (talk) 12:56, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

•  Support Classic. --99of9 (talk) 11:38, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Support. Very cool looking image. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:49, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
•  Support Nice. --Solar Police↑↑Speak 07:40, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Tomer T (talk) 08:44, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Natural phenomena