Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Glory (Optical phenomenon)

Glory (Optical phenomenon) edit

Original - A glory is an optical phenomenon appearing much like an iconic Saint's halo about the observer's shadow which is produced by light backscattered (a combination of diffraction, reflection and refraction) towards its source by a cloud of uniformly-sized water droplets. The association with a halo is not coincidental, but derivative, though a real glory has multiple colored rings. This particular glory was photographed from a helicopter that's why there's a shadow of a helicopter inside the glory. The mountain in background is Mauna Loa

Reason: High EV of a more or less rare phenomenon. Good quality.
Articles in which this image appears: Glory (optical phenomenon)
Creator: Mbz1

Support as nominator --Mbz1 (talk) 22:43, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: it's an interesting phenomenon, but I don't find this picture to be particularly striking in terms of composition, subject matter or outstanding technical accomplishment. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 16:52, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, most of the times, when a glory is present, there's nothing else but clouds are seen. The nominated image is different. It clearly shows Mauna Loa, with its bold top and forestry bottom. One hardly could chose the composition for such shots at all. IMO the nominated image is the best image of the phenomenon Wikipedia has to offer, and IMO the nominated image is unique enough compare to other FP images that it has the right to be considered. The image was taken from a very, very shaky helicopter. I tried very hard to avoid reflection. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:01, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm undecided so far, it looks really hard to get a good picture of that. Good EV, but not a great picture. Leaning towards support. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 03:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No matter what, thanks for the comments to both of you, NotFromUtrecht and NativeForeigner. IMO not all FP should be great pictures. Some of them should be simply interesting and educational and this one is! If the picture is promoted, somebody could find it by a pure accident while looking over FP images, get interested in what it is, and read the article. Then next time he flies, he will try to see the phenomenon himself, and it is what education is about IMO.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:30, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is, naturally, a weird one. I can't help feeling though, despite everything else, the subject of the photo is something small at the bottom of the picture. J Milburn (talk) 11:50, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, here's the deal. The image's resolution much exceeds the required 1 mega pixel, which means I could easily crop the image to show the glory close up, but my idea was to show how it occurs in a real life, where to look for it. Such glories could be seen more or less often assuming the right clouds are present, the person sits in the right place, the plane is close enough to the clouds. To see the glory one should look down. How many planes passengers look down? In my situation the glory was not only down, but slightly behind. I saw it only because I knew I would see it, and I looked for it. To see it was one deal, to take an image was quite a different experience. Here's how I took that image. There was a very small window at my knees level, which I was able to open or to close as I wished. So, I put mu hand with my camera in that window. I even could not look in my view finder, when I was taken the image. And after all my efforts nobody has supported the image just yet :) Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:53, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I think that's maybe because people agree with J Milburn. I for one Weak Oppose due to the very small nature of the subject in this photograph, given how frequently potential FP noms are rejected for this reason... I understand the technical difficulties of this shot, but I can't support it given how small the subject is in the picture... Gazhiley (talk) 09:32, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw--Mbz1 (talk) 06:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 21:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator. Makeemlighter (talk) 21:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]