Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Crepuscular Rays in San Fransisco

Crepuscular Rays in San Francisco

 * Reason:The picture is of reasonable quality and shows a quite remarkable meteorological effect. The picture is a striking image, well-framed and quite unique.
 * Articles this image appears in:Crepuscular rays
 * Creator:User:Mbz1


 * Support as nominator JBG (talk) 21:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment holy oversharpening, look at the halos around those buildings actually on closer inspection that may be a side effect of the fog and the limited DR of the camera. Neat image - I'd support a larger version that was better cropped and processed Mfield (talk) 21:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm afraid this is the only version I have. May I please tell you the story about taking of the image? I took it, few years ago. I got out of my office and saw the effect. I had no camera on me. I went back to my office and borrowed a bad point and shot camera from my co-worker. After this I tried many times to see the same effect, but it has never been so prominent as this first time. That's why I Support the image for now, but, if I am lucky enough to take a better picture of the same effect, I'll delist this one( if of course it ever gets promoted) and nominate a better one. Thank you. May I please also ask, if somebody could make it better in photo shop?--Mbz1 (talk) 21:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I Just tried playing with it in photoshop and aside from some noise reduction, there simply isn't enough information there in the original to permit much improvement. I think its this or nothing. Damn those early 0.75 megapixel digital P&S cameras - such a step backwards from P&S 35mm. Mfield (talk) 21:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much for trying.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment I'd like to add that the image description was written by a very famous atmospheric optics expert, which IMO adds to the encyclopedic value of the image.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose Due to tilt, grain, and barely acceptable size. (If you're picky about 24 pixels, I'd oppose based on grain and tilt alone.)--HereToHelp (talk to me) 01:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Great image, huge enc value – why does it have to be FP to be appreciated? It clearly lacks a deal of technical finesse to be an obvious candidate. --mikaultalk 13:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Support High encyclopedic value as it demonstrates the phenomenon in an urban environment in contrast to all the other images in the article. Compositionally it works very well with the forward splay of the rays being emphasised by opposing backward drive of the buildings. It is a rare example of "tilt" adding value rather than spoiling. I think it would look better without the white buildings to the right, and with more of the square building on the left, but thats being picky and in shots like this, you get what you get. Doesnt need higher resolution as it looks good and clear at thumb. Motmit (talk) 10:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * We're not judging thumbnails. --Dschwen 20:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose Too much noise. Also, the size isn't quite up to the "standards" of most FPCs.  crassic ![ talk ] 05:34, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Crassic.--CPacker (talk) 04:43, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * OpposeAlexNebraska (talk) 22:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

MER-C 08:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC)