Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Lava channel at Big Island of Hawaii

Lava channel at Big Island of Hawaii

File:Konachannel with overflows edit2.jpg

Edit 2

File:Dickchannel with overflows edit 4.jpg

Edit 4

Reason: IMO it is a good quality and high encyclopedic value image.
Proposed caption: Pāhoehoe Lava flows in the open lava channel (not in a Lava tube) with overflows at both sides. The image was taken at The Big Island of Hawaii. The lava flow is due to July 21, 2007 fissure eruption at Kīlauea volcano.The channel is crusting over with a v-shaped opening pointing upstream. The crusting-over process usually starts at the upstream end, the crust grows downstream for a considerable distance, then the crust founders and sinks opening the channel to crusting over again. The main channel and overflows show perched nature of this kind of lava channels. The picture was taken from a helicopter. The link to the map of the flow by USGS.
Articles this image appears in: Fissure vent
Creator: Mbz1

Support as nominator Mbz1 17:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It appears a bit under-exposed, is there a reason for this or could you lighten it??? -Fcb981^{(talk:contribs)} 19:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you for your quesion, Fcb981. The reason of the original image being so dark is that I overdone it in photo shop. Does the edit look any better?--Mbz1 21:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support (prefer Edit 4). The rocks are quite dark in real life. The picture may be a little dark, but not much. -- Coneslayer 20:18, 7 WESTSIDE 2007 (UTC)
Support edit 2 which I've enhanced some, based (colour, density) on your equally amazing image at Lava. Awesome subject, well captured. --mikaul^talk 23:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~ Support Edit 4 only I think the original is too dark, Edit 1 too bright, and Edit 2 makes the red look fake somehow. I'd support if someone with better photo-editing abilities than me could try with another color-correcting edit. – sgeureka ^t•c 01:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for the comment, Sgeureka. I really like the version edited by mikault. He did an amazing job making the image to look more like this one , which was taken at the same day. Still I added one more edit. --Mbz1 01:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support edit 4 only and support clearing out the rest of the edits. de Bivort 04:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've cleared what I could (2 of mine own edits - the edits that nobody voted for). I'm afraid I cannot clear any other edits because Edit 2 was not posted by me and Edit 1 was already supported. If User Coneslayer does not mind to quit his support for Edit 1, I will remove it at once. Thank you.--Mbz1 04:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Done! -- Coneslayer 12:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yay, back to reasonable choices - my pref is still for #4 - it seems to have better color balance. de Bivort 17:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Edit 4 Edit 4 is better due to sharper colors. --Shark face 217 22:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Due to quality issues - particularly Edit 4 which seems to have been poorly oversharpened to compensate. At 100% it's just not as crisp as we've come to expect on FP - particularly for images at this res--Fir0002 22:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Agree it is not very sharp in the full resolution.Thank you for the vote.--Mbz1 22:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support edit 2 or 3, encyclopaedic value is reason enough to support this image despite its techical faults. --Aqwis 22:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Lava channel with overflows edit 4.jpg MER-C 08:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]