Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Aerial image of Grand Prismatic Spring (view from the south).jpg

File:Aerial image of Grand Prismatic Spring (view from the south).jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Dec 2022 at 18:27:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Aerial image of Grand Prismatic Spring (view from the south).jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Aerial image of Grand Prismatic Spring (view from the south).jpg

• Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena#Volcanism
•  Info created by Carsten Steger - uploaded by Carsten Steger - nominated by Carsten Steger -- Carsten Steger (talk) 18:27, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support -- Carsten Steger (talk) 18:27, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Oppose That's a bit of a dissapointing quality for a daylight shot taken with a D5. I even initially thought this was shot with a cheap drone. Not sure what went wrong. - Benh (talk) 20:05, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Info Benh, thank you for your review. I took this image through the pilot’s window while flying a Cessna 172 at approximately 100 knots (185 km/h) with a fairly long focal length of 190 mm because I had to fly at least 600 m (2000 ft) above ground level over the national park. Even with the short exposure time of 1/1600 s, there was some motion blur in the raw image, which I corrected with a sharpening software tool. Unfortunately, there is some residual motion blur visible in the image, which I was unable to correct. I uploaded four different pictures of Grand Prismatic Spring that I took during the flight. In my opinion, this image has the best composition of the four, so I selected it for the nomination. I would be interested to learn whether one of the other images would be acceptable for you. --Carsten Steger (talk) 20:42, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

  • If 1/1600 is not enough, why not aiming at even faster shutter speed? I don't think you need f/10 and you can easily go for f/4 or wider if you lens permits it. None of the other shots stands out (they are equally good composition wise to me). It's really the quality that is a deal breaker, in my opinion, of course. - Benh (talk) 17:14, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

•  Oppose per Benh. I have to agree that the image quality of this beautiful sight is not high enough for FP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:38, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support I like it. For my eyes the sharpness is just OK, and hey, this is still more resolution than the other 11 aerial views of this spring. It seems quite rare too -- I don't think drones are allowed there. --A.Savin 22:56, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support per A.Savin. Actually this is still a stunning photo in my eyes. --Aristeas (talk) 08:46, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

•  Comment @Carsten: Every time I see your photos, I think: You make an admirable effort and take almost/already professional aerial photography! However, in the end the quality of the photos at pixel level is not as great as it should be. I suspect it’s due to some camera settings and/or to the post-processing. Maybe you would just have to change a few things to make your photos even better. This isn’t the right place to discuss it, but maybe we could discuss elsewhere with some others what it might be. I don’t mean this as criticism, but as help, because I really estimate your work. --Aristeas (talk) 08:46, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

•  Oppose per Benh. --SHB2000 (talk) 00:31, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support per A.Savin --Kritzolina (talk) 11:13, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support -- Radomianin (talk) 13:09, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support I am inclined to be more forgiving of slight unsharpness for an aerial photo Cmao20 (talk) 13:02, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --Clément Bardot (talk) 13:37, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support Daniel Case (talk) 19:41, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Weak support Per A. Savin, even though I can see and follow Benh's objections, but it's still an impressive image in my eyes with slight deductions. --Sandro Halank (talk) 08:18, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:13, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

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