Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Incandescent Pahoehoe fountain

Incandescent Pahoehoe fountain
1983 image of a 10 meter tall lava fountain on Hawaii. Striking enough? The date on the bottom is a tad distracting but it should be easily removed by someone photoshopically inclined...(not me! :o) --Deglr6328 06:15, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC) +15 / -1 With preference for #2 -- Solipsist 12:22, 7 May 2005 (UTC) 
 * Nominate and Support--Deglr6328 06:16, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. It's a GIF! A JPEG version is available, along with other vocano images, at U.S. Geological Survey. The JPEG is smaller and a bit dull (more realistic, probably, no indexed colors), but probably better anyway. Jonas Olson 07:31, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I have uploaded both a version of the GIF with the date painted out and the JPEG linked above, for possible alternative voting. Delgr6328, could you please give a URL whenever you upload a web-accessible image?  It helps find other images, verify copyright status, find out where to ask for higher-quality images, and so on.  As for the JPEG version above, I don't know how they got rid of the date (photoshop, I guess). --Andrew 07:47, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC) (In fact I think the GIF was from another scan of the same negative/print. --Andrew 11:43, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC))
 * Support both undated images. I don't see any significant difference between GIF and JPG, at least not enough to oppose a gif. Mgm|(talk) 10:45, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * There are technical concerns; see GIF. GIF uses an algorithm that was patented until recently (and the patent was being enforced); this meant that legal decoders had to pay money, and legal open-source decoders were basically impossible.  Most geeks still harbor a certain amount of malevolence towards GIFs for this reason.  More relevantly, they are (supposedly) lossless, so they lead to huge filesizes for photographs; the quality is low in spite of this because they have only 256 colors to work with rather than millions, so they must discard a certain amount of color information.  However, this specific image does not contain a broad range of colors, so the GIF conversion process probably did not mangle it too badly (although its colors are very different from the JPEG we have for some reason).  In any case neither undated version is actually a GIF; the undated versions should be judged on how they look (with a caveat that the colors may be more dubious on the GIF-derived one). --Andrew 11:10, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * Support the JPEG version; beautiful, striking. I prefer the colors; also it is (now) much higher-resolution. --Andrew 11:43, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * Support only the original JPEG - I trust the volcanologists to get the colors right. After all, this is supposed to be informative, not just pretty, and the color contains (for example) information about the temperature. --Andrew 22:49, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Support JPEG. Cool photo. -- Chris 73 Talk 12:03, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * Support the undated JPEG, its colors look more natural then the GIF's colors. --Bricktop 12:29, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Support the 2nd version. -- brian0918 &#153;  13:02, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Support #2. There's a lot more detail visible, even when shrunk to the same size as #3. &mdash;Korath (Talk) 16:06, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * Support although full res photo looks pretty ordinary. But it certainly is striking. Something to give a perspective on the size would have been good aswell. --Fir0002 07:49, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Support final image. I've had mornings like this... Denni &#9775; 02:27, 2005 Apr 20 (UTC)
 * Support the JPEG version the GIF image with its reduction to 256 colors is a bit too unrealistic IMO, however the JPEG can get with more saturation/contrast. Ericd 16:56, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. What article does this illustrate? Matthewcieplak 04:41, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Ah. Lava. Matthewcieplak 04:42, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Support #2. -- Solipsist 16:20, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Support I like them all, so just count this vote as one toward the picture with the most votes in the end ;) TomStar81 05:46, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Support #2 or #4. Sango  123  16:29, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * Support #2 - unusual picture worth being featured JoJan 18:28, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Support #2 - Doesn't need any tweaking or color changing to show how amazing this is. --jacobolus (t) 04:18, 7 May 2005 (UTC)