Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Grand Prismatic Spring and Midway Geyser Basin

Grand Prismatic Spring and Midway Geyser Basin

 * Reason:Adds value to the articles
 * Articles this image appears in:Hot spring; Geothermal areas of Yellowstone
 * Creator:Mbz1


 * Support as nominator --Mbz1 (talk) 17:04, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Support - Beautiful, but if it were to fail here, Commons would be great. Ceran  →// forge 21:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Saturation looks overcooked at first glance. Any comments on the post-processing? Kaldari (talk) 21:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Here's what some people might consider a reputable reference . I'd say yes, it looks a little too saturated against the reference, especially the red around the edge. Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 01:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Dear Papa Lima Whiskey, thank you for comparing my image to the National Geographic one! This comparison might not be exactly valid IMO. The National Geographic image is an aerial view looking directly down at the spring while my image is not. Besides National Geographic photographer took his image from the safety of a helicopter while I was literally trying not to loose my balance at the very loose ground I was standing and at the same time constantly looking out for  bears :) May I please offer to your attention another reference taken from more or less the same place I took my image? The colors of the water deppend very much of the time of the day the image was taken. Kaldari, I did not do anything special. I did adjust colors in Adobe. Having said all this I'd like also to add that yes, the image might be a little bit too saturated. Please do feel free to oppose it because of this. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 05:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * What is interesting that while looking for the refference I found this one with my own image from Wikipedia, the nominated one. It got 789 diggs. Not bad! Somebody even felt bad for Wikipedia.Here's what he/she said while talking about my image: "Anyone else feel bad for Wikipedia when such ultra-high-res photos are submitted to Digg? IMO, either post it on Flickr/Imageshack/Photobucket or some other for-profit site, or give a link to donate to the non-profit site we love so much: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate"  So, I hope that if the image is not promoted, at least it made somebody to donate to Wikipedia. :)--Mbz1 (talk) 06:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * After comparing against other images, I'll support it. I guess the super saturation is natural in this case. Kaldari (talk) 20:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Support - very cool... another place I'll have to go visit. Sasata (talk) 01:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Interesting. Made me find out something new. --Muhammad (talk) 18:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Support either with personal preference for original. Love the colors. ~  ωαdεstεr 16  «talkstalk» 06:54, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Nice. —  Aitias  // discussion 01:43, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Support: Prefer the original by far as it doesn't have the dirt in the foreground or a tree obscuring the orange . . . stuff. Streams?  Interesting subject matter.   Mae din \talk 19:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

MER-C 03:28, 13 February 2009 (UTC)