Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Firehole river at Upper Geyser Basin-2008-june.jpg

File:Firehole river at Upper Geyser Basin-2008-june.jpg, featured

Voting period ends on 2 May 2009 at 19:24:01

•  Info created, uploaded and nominated by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 19:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 19:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
•  Support I wish the vegetation on the right bank were more detailed (it looks a bit posterised to me), but otherwise, this is a wonderfully-composed and captured shot. —Notyourbroom (talk) 06:52, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
  •  Request Please add a geolocation tag to this image's info page if possible. Thank you. —Notyourbroom (talk) 06:53, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure quite where you were, but here's a starting point in the Upper Geyser Basin: {{Location|44|27|48.8|N|110|49|52.7|W}} —Notyourbroom (talk) 07:03, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Done, Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

•  Support --Zakharii 15:38, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Presumably the underexposure of the vegetation areas results from the necessary exposure to avoid too much saturated white on the geyser itself. And tweaking the gamma to compensate will probably lose the brilliance of other parts of the picture. -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 00:33, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Robert of Ramsor. You've got it just right! --Mbz1 (talk) 00:43, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

•  Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 15:08, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose sorry to be the opposer again but too many parts are underexposed due to a (imho) wrong chosen exposure. Other parts are oversaturated and quality in general is soso. Composition is nice though. --AngMoKio (talk) 23:34, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Please do not worry. There are few more of my nominations for you to oppose. Please do not miss any. :)--Mbz1 (talk) 00:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

•  Support With Robert of Ramsor. A new sensor will give us in some years a larger contrast between dark and light points in the image. Today it is -like we say in German- "ein Streit um des Kaisers Bart".--Michael Gäbler (talk) 13:29, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Danke schon, Michael. When we had only film and wet chemistry, we didn't have some of these problems, but you didn't know if your photo was OK until days or months later. Too late, then, to do a re-take. Technology improves every year, although I think that the JPG compression and current computer graphics are major limitations. We need systems with RGB ranges 0 to FFF rather than 0 to FF (hexadecimal). -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 00:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

•  Oppose as AngMoKio. Lycaon (talk) 17:38, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
•  Support--Avala (talk) 20:19, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose AngMo has adressed the quality issues and I don't think it's the most superior image of yellowstone park, when taking a look at the category. --Richard Bartz (talk) 10:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

result: 7 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 10:56, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Alt 1, withdrawn

•  Support --Mbz1 (talk) 00:16, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment Mm, I like the color saturation of the geyser and the red liquid more in the first version. —Notyourbroom (talk) 01:43, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, I do too, but shhh, please do not tell, AngMoKio. I'm doing my best to please him, but I am afraid I am failing miserably. :) --Mbz1 (talk) 02:00, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Imho it might look nicer but it simply is not realistic as it looks here. In reality the colours are not that intense there (as in the original version). By pushing up the saturation or doing other things with PS, Mbz worsens many of her very nice pictures. I am just stating my opinion. --AngMoKio (talk) 10:20, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

 this one only--Mbz1 (talk) 16:18, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => withdrawn. Maedin\talk 10:56, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Alt 2, not featured

•  Support --Mbz1 (talk) 02:00, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Avala (talk) 20:19, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Lacking sharpness - no concerted light and average composition, sorry. This isn't MBZ at it's its best. --Richard Bartz (talk) 13:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you,Richard, I mean thank you for "it's" .--Mbz1 (talk) 17:35, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 10:56, 3 May 2009 (UTC)