Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Mauna Loa from the air May 2009.jpg

File:Mauna Loa from the air May 2009.jpg, not featured

Voting period ends on 20 Jul 2009 at 17:23:19

•  Info w:Lava flows of a different colors and a w:fissure vent at w:Mauna Loa
•  Info The image was taken from a helicopter.
•  Info created, uploaded and nominated by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 17:23, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 17:23, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Simply great. Yann (talk) 18:18, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Interesting scene. (And I think I am now seeing true colours having just replaced my fading old CRT monitor with something more modern.) -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 23:31, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment Obviously, I'd like to know how a shot from an helicopter and some lava being shown can make this a Featured Picture? Besides, why is it cropped (or erhm downsampled?) Assuming the camera can go up to 3888 x 2592, an horizon would have been nice... Esby (talk) 13:05, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure I follow your comment/question. Are you against featuring lava images in general? Are you against featuring images that were taken from a helicopter in general? Have you noticed by any chance that the image shows a fissure vent, not only the different lava flows? Have you read the articles the image is linked to? Were you able to learn something new from that reading? The original image did not show the horizon either. The camera was pointed mostly down. I cropped the image the way I believe was better to see the lava and the vents. The size of the cropped image is more than 2 times bigger than the required size.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

That's simple; I don't see any wow in this picture. Honestly I'd be for having this image promoted as VI or QI, but not as a FP. I know that lava is rare, that helicopter are rare (althought it's relative to where you actually are for both) but still there is nothing special in it to my eyes. I know some (commons) guy that is in Iceland right now with a good camera, are we going to make his pictures of geyser/volcano FP too, supposing he used an helicopter? Esby (talk) 11:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. --Mbz1 (talk) 14:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

•  Support Nice! —kallerna™ 19:48, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Esby. Lycaon (talk) 20:08, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

May I please ask you to be a little bit more specific?

1. Are you opposing because you are against featuring any lava images at all?
2. Are you opposing because you are against featuring any images taken from a helicopter at all?
3. Are you opposing because you are against featuring any cropped images?
4. Are you opposing because you are against featuring any images that do not show a horizon? --Mbz1 (talk) 00:44, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

•  Neutral Although I might maybe hang this pic on my wall as I like the colours and the structure, I really miss sth to get a feeling for the size of that structure and also a horizon would be helpful to get a general feeling for that landscape. --AngMoKio (talk) 07:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose - As AngMoKio: no sense of scale or orientation. The abstract structure is not special enough imo to reach FP status. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

 CommentHonestly IMO all those talks about horizon, scale and orientation sound funny to say the least. It is impossible to have a scale and/or to show the horizon in this kind of image. The similar image is not easy to find on the NET. I did a search on Flickr and Google and did not find any. The image has big EV. Many features of this image do not even need a scale to be encyclopedic. For example different colors of the lava. Well, there is nothing new in those opposes. I learned a long time ago that quite a few reviewers here will rather promote number tenth European honey bee or few images of the same bird taken in the same zoo than a really unique, one-of-a-kind image, but, no worries, next time I will ask my husband to jump down to create a scale just for few shots, you know, and I will ask the pilot to fly as close to the mountain as possible in order to take an image that will show both the lava and the horizon. If the helicopter will crash, it will not go down in vain. Just think what a great scale it will create for all other photographers, who will happen to fly by :)--Mbz1 (talk) 14:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

•  Support /Daniel78 (talk) 23:29, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
•  Support I think its a picture worth a promotion and therefore I support it. On the other hand, I think the passion demonstrated by Mbz1 when reacting on criticism might be a little exaggerated. I myself know to well how it feels, when you took great efforts to take a picture and somehow feel, that others don't appreciate that. Nevertheless, a little more objectiveness would probably help both sides. --Curnen (talk) 10:18, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Lacking any sense of scale. Lighting and sharpness aren't ideal. Arguments of EV are weak here, in my opinion; they hold more weight at en: (for example). Maedin\^talk 16:06, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose - Good color balance and resolution, but the shot is to close, as per Maedin, lacks the logical scale. - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 08:23, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose as Maedin. --Estrilda (talk) 09:31, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

result: 6 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 11:44, 21 July 2009 (UTC)