Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Opal Pool YNP2.jpg

File:Opal Pool YNP2.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Feb 2011 at 04:06:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Opal Pool YNP2.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Opal Pool YNP2.jpg

•  Info created by User:Acroterion - uploaded by User:Acroterion - nominated by User:Acroterion -- Acroterion (talk) 04:06, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
•  Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 04:16, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
•  Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 04:46, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
•  Support Nice landscape, fantastic color. Steven Walling 06:24, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose Boring composition and lighting. Noisy as well. - Benh (talk) 12:21, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose noisy --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 13:14, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
•  Support --Brackenheim (talk) 13:19, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose noisy. To me extreme color processing--Miguel Bugallo 00:25, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

There was no color enhancement in this image; the raw image is virtually identical, with no in-camera enhancement either, and I dislike enhanced images as much as you do. The bacterial mats and water at Grand Prismatic Spring and its neighboring pools like Opal really look like this. Acroterion (talk) 03:11, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok, sorry, but noisy--Miguel Bugallo 18:24, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

•  Support A great shot that demonstrates the extremely bright coloration in these pools. I've been to the Yellowstone geyser basins. This isn't extreme color processing. I remember pools with brighter colors all over the color spectrum within the same pool, such as the Grand Prismatic Spring. Royalbroil 01:12, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
•  Strong support Great photo! Thomas888b (talk) 12:10, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
•  Support per RoyalBroil. --Snaevar (talk) 12:51, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
•  Support --Cayambe (talk) 14:56, 6 February 2011 (UTC)... transferring my support to the alternative image below. --Cayambe (talk) 16:35, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose Just to make it clear that the alternative is better. Just look at the noise in this one people. --99of9 (talk) 02:13, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Alternative

•  Comment I know I can't vote, but that doesn't mean I should abstain of commenting. I really liked the image, although I agree with Carschten that the image is quite noisy. Therefore I retouched it, my noised filtered version is this one.--Gaendalf (talk) 23:56, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, much appreciated. I'll get in touch with you about your methods, as I'm aware that my camera has a noisy sensor and have had some difficulty in dealing with it. Acroterion (talk) 03:15, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

•  Support -- Marmoulak (talk) 02:46, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
•  Support The noise reduction job looks like it was done well (why wouldn't you shoot at ISO100 in the first place??). Nice scene, I think the cloud formation adds that special something to the great colours. --99of9 (talk) 11:22, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
•  Support Stunning! --TFCforever (talk) 05:17, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose As per my other vote on the original image - Benh (talk) 12:07, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
•  Support Well framed, high composition and clear illustration of the features.--MONGO (talk) 05:27, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
•  Support In preference to my original upload. Acroterion (talk) 05:42, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
•  Support --Cayambe (talk) 16:36, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
•  Support well done. Ggia (talk) 19:50, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
•  Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:04, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:55, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

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

The chosen alternative is: File:Opal Pool YNP2 filtered noise.jpg