Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Yellowstone - Lower Falls

Yellowstone - Lower Falls

Reason: High Quality, Great Resolution, Superb color, Meets all FPC criteria.
Articles this image appears in: Yellowstone National Park
Creator: Adam Olson
Nominator: Adam Olson

Support — Adam Olson 08:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Beautiful composition but it's very grainy and the mist obscures most of the image --⁪froth^T 10:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Great view, but perhaps the picture could be taken with a different camera, maybe even at a different time of day (I daresay it's obvious, but has anyone noticed the rainbow?). Mrug ² 15:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Odd colours, and I don't think that's rainbow, I think it's lens flare. Surely the rainbow would be curved? - Adrian Pingstone 16:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support edit 1 - I like the image so I did an edit. I hope that this is a rainbow. If it's proven to be a lens flare I oppose. --Arad 19:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Yes, I think Adrian Pingstone's got it right. Mrug ² 20:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support This is a really eye catching image and has a lovely combination of colours, would make a great featured picture.Telly addict^{Editor review!} 20:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Ack Adrian. Lensflare. --Dschwen(A) 22:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Definitely lens flare - rainbows don't look like that. The view has lots of potential but the image quality isn't quite up to scratch. I'd love to visit and have a go myself though. ;-) Still waiting for that wiki sponsored world trip... Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 23:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree that the quality is not good enough for FP standards. But I don't think we should reject so lightly that this is a rainbow. If the sun is behind the camera and there are water droplets in the air, that is the simplest explanation. The angular size is too small for the curvature to be visible. Alvesgaspar 16:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm happy to stand corrected, but for a number of reasons I don't see how it could be a rainbow. To begin with, the 'rainbow' repeats at least three times with no break. This is not consistent with actual rainbows from rain droplets. If there is repetition, there should be a significant gap (see Rainbow#Variations). Secondly, you can see from composition that the angle of view is reasonably large (at the bottom of the frame, you are looking down at what I'm guessing is about 30-40 degrees below the horizon) and this should be more than enough to see the curvature of the rainbow. Thirdly, look at the top right hand corner of the frame. The 'rainbow' disappears prematurely and suddenly. This is definitely lens flare IMHO - and the simplest explanation! A very common problem in photography that presents itself differently from lens to lens... Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 16:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - yes, I think you are right, too many rainbows! - Alvesgaspar 17:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 11:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]