Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Lava cascade

Lava cascade


Created by US Geological Service, appears in lava. *grimace* Small, though. 00:34, 3 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Nominate and support. - Zafiroblue05 00:34, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Hrm. There are some more of the lava photos from the USGS website Kilauea Eruption Images There are med/large image sizes (large is 600x800). I'm partial to this one, if the recent lava falls were the subject. It's bigger too. --vaeiou 04:35, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I had that one up before, actually, but I think it looks a little strange, like someone drew the lava on with a crayon. What do others think? Zafiroblue05 17:27, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose - too small - Adrian Pingstone 10:12, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Image is 298 px (width) x 425 px (height) Jtkiefer T  05:07, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, you've quoted the dimensions correctly. That's probably a tad too small though. Enochlau 15:41, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the image is quite small especially considering the subject of it, an image of a natural event of something has an even more important reason than most images to be large since it should be able to be big enough to be absolutely stunning, especially FP quality ones. Jtkiefer T  18:01, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Smaller than the displayed thumbnail. &mdash;Cryptic (talk) 11:44, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * And oppose the second image, too, due to the rock in the lower left. &mdash;Cryptic (talk) 06:17, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Here is a larger image of the same lava cascade... 600x800, should It's a different picture, closer up, but it's stunning as well. Zafiroblue05 19:03, 7 December 2005 (UTC) (If this belongs in a new featured picture candidacy, please tell me.)
 * Wow, if that detail is derived from the original photo then surely a much higher resolution image is available somewhere. I can't support either of them as-is, but I would definitely support a version that that is a similar DPI but of the overall scene. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 19:53, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * It's a different photo entirely - taken earlier, it appears: note the lack of partially solidified buildup at the bottom of the cascade in the second as opposed to the first. Zafiroblue05 21:39, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * ( − ) Oppose Low res, but otherwise pretty cool. --Fir0002 23:27, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Low res. Enochlau 01:14, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
 * That oppose is for the first one. I will also oppose the second also; although the picture is quite stunning and I'm sure difficult to take, the large out of focus rock is annoying. Enochlau 22:39, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Support second version. I think the size/resolution is fine in the second picture; stunning flow of lava. Flcelloguy (A note? ) 17:29, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Support second version - illustrative and instantly recognizable, great colors. - JustinWick 01:01, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Raven4x4x 02:59, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

