Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/360 degrees fogbow

360 degrees fogbow
Voting period ends on 7 Aug 2010 at 09:34:07 (UTC)
 * Reason:Very rare image, used on many different languages Wikipedias, good quality, FP on Commons
 * Articles in which this image appears:Fog bow
 * FP category for this image:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena/Atmospheric optics
 * Creator:Mbz1


 * Support as nominator -- George Chernilevsky talk 09:34, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Fixed your title - it just read "a name for your nomination"... Haven't made a decision yet though... Gazhiley (talk) 09:38, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: It's a very pretty picture, but I'm not sure I like the shadow on the photographer. Is that unavoidable? J Milburn (talk) 11:21, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You do not like my shadow!!! Come on you did not mean it, did you? &#9786;&#9786; Yes, it is absolutely unavoidable in that situation (complete bow), and it is said so in the caption: "The shadow of photographer is always located at the anti-solar point and the center of the bow." As a matter of fact, when the image was displayed at NASA site, I got an email. Somebody advised me to jump next time while taking the image, that the fogbow would not be broken by my shadow &#9786; except I doubt there would be next time. I do see many fogbows, but it was the only one that was complete, and it lasted only few minutes. When fogbows ate located further away from a photographer then the shadow gets smaller, or even is not seen at the image, but those fogbows are never complete. Here's one more example: File:Fogbow spectre at the bay.jpg My shadow is smaller, but it still there exactly in the middle of the bow, and inside Solar glory.   --Mbz1 (talk) 12:25, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Support Thank you, George.--Mbz1 (talk) 12:25, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Very nice. Interesting to note: several elements of this photo would lead me to oppose in most situations. It's not very sharp: well it is shot in the fog, which is a must for shooting this phenomenon. Strong fisheye distortion: a must for shooting a 360 degree fogbow. I'd also like to say that the background for the fogbow is nice: it provides some context for the image, but it is not overly distracting from the subject. Good work.  Jujutacular  T · C 21:04, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Interesting image, made me want to read more --Muhammad (talk) 02:31, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Mbz1 should get Pulitzer Prize for her fantastic images. Broccoli (talk) 13:34, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Very striking. — raeky  T  15:25, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Support. Nice, good representation of the phenomenon. Do we already one of these featured, or did none of the others ever get through (sorry, I'm too lazy to check atm)? Question for Mila - just wondering, but would moving across say 5ft to the left have allowed you to centre the fogbow on that little hillock, and avoid having it cutoff, or would that not have worked for some reason? --jjron (talk) 19:02, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * We have no other fogbow featured I believe. I saw the fogbow while driving, and there were no space to park there. So I drove further down, and parked, but the fogbow was gone. I mean fogbow was there, but only 180 degree, and not 360 degrees. Then I run to the place I just passed, and it was there, but only for 1-2 minutes. In order to see such fogbow, the fog should have been present at the ground itself. Maybe this very hillock made it possible for the fog to concentrate there somehow. --Mbz1 (talk) 19:42, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Support Great EV, very intriguing phenomenon portrayed in an excellent way.  WackyWace  converse 18:51, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Support an image with great EV. It really would make me want to read more if I saw it on the main page. -- bydand • talk  04:42, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

--Makeemlighter (talk) 03:04, 7 August 2010 (UTC)