Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Lower Antelope Canyon 2

Lower Antelope Canyon 2 / Sandstone


I took this in Lower Antelope Canyon while hiking through. It was briefly a part of the Antelope Canyon article, but has been edited out as there were too many photos in there, making it look like a photography gallery rather than an encyclopedia article. I added it to the article Red, and I think it enhances that article, demonstrating various reddish hues. Note: Janke added it to the sandstone article, and it works very well there.


 * Self-nominate and support. - moondigger 04:53, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. A beautiful image, showing both the colors and the shapes. I added it to the sandstone article. Note: Some of us have had a discussion with moondigger about the size of his GFDL images. Bigger is better, of course, but this image does fullfill the criteria in What is a featured picture?, so please don't oppose only because of the size. --Janke | Talk 05:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Janke, I have replaced all of my 1000x667 images with 1231x821 images, increasing overall size/resolution by 50%. Size shouldn't be a concern any longer. -- moondigger 12:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Support -Glaurung 05:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Antelope Canyon is a beautiful subject indeed. Most of the pictures taken there are visually very pleasing. So is this one. I have seen much better pictures of this subject at more interesting angles and less ordinary lighting. This picture is nothing special at all. Mikeo 05:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Mikeo nailed it, you can do much better for this subject. Also, it's more orange than red to me...--Zambaccian 11:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Yes, I've seen other great pictures of this subject (in National Geographic, for instance), but can you point to any GFDL ones here on Wiki? --Janke | Talk 11:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. I think Mikeo and Zambaccian are thinking of Upper Antelope Canyon. I have taken many of the more stereotypical shots in Upper Antelope Canyon, with beams coming down from the top, but that's not what's depicted here. You can't take shots like that in Lower, as it has a completely different character and 'beams' are almost non-existent.  This is one of only three shots from Lower Antelope Canyon available on Wikipedia or Wiki Commons.  In fact, until I updated the Antelope Canyon article here, one might not have known there even was a different slot canyon called Lower Antelope Canyon, with a different character than Upper.  They're not the same place. -- moondigger 12:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Speaking of which, Upper antelope 2 md.jpg is a better shot, isn't it? This one is a bit...well...you don't really know where you are or what you're looking at. Stevage 13:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't know... I kinda like this one better. I actually like its abstract nature.  However the one you mention was taken in Upper, though it's not a stereotypical Upper shot with a beam of light streaming down from above and striking the sand, so I don't know how well it would go over as a featured picture candidate. -- moondigger 13:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * You know, this might not be the place for it, but I just wanted to comment on the stereotypical Upper Antelope picture, with a shaft of light streaming down from above and striking the ground. Almost every one of those photos (or the scenes they depict) is manipulated, and doesn't accurately depict a natural scene.  You can't actually see a beam of light from the side naturally. The not-so-big secret is that somebody (usually one of the guides) scoops up sand and throws it in the air in the vicinity of the light beams, then runs out of the shot while photographers snap away.  The sand and dust in the air renders the light beam visible from the side.


 * Now I'm not saying that many of these images aren't striking. They are.  But my philosophy is to take pictures of natural scenes in their natural state, so it's not the kind of image I'm going to contribute, especially when there are already several available on Wikipedia and Commons. -- moondigger 14:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose. I don't know if you were in a rush when you took the photo, but maybe if you had stuck around a little more you could have got a better picture with more interesting lighting and angle. --Life is like a box of chocolates 19:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I did not rush through. I took hundreds of pictures that day, and this one (amongst others) appeals to me a great deal.  I wouldn't have nominated it if it didn't.  On two photographer's forums it garnered almost universal praise, though I suspect what they're looking for in an image and what Wikipedians are looking for in an image differ.  (FWIW, most of them were getting sick of seeing the same typical sunbeam-style Upper Antelope Canyon images over and over.) -- moondigger 20:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I would *hope* we're looking for different things :) We're an encyclopaedia after all. Hard to say what this is illustrating - you say it's "lower antelope canyon"...well, if you say so. As you say, it's sort of abstract, which is the exact opposite of encyclopaedic :) So, "nice image, what are we supposed to do with it?" Stevage 20:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * To be clear: this is one small part of Lower Antelope Canyon, about 2/3 of the way through the length. Because Lower Antelope is a slot canyon, it is very narrow. (In parts you can touch both sides with your outstretched arms, and it's even narrower when you pass through the opening in this photo - I had to turn sideways to fit through carrying a camera backpack and tripod.  If you view the image at full resolution, you can see tread marks in the sand at lower left from sneakers of people passing through.)  It took me about three hours to get through the whole thing, stopping frequently along the way to set up the tripod and take photos.  The next time I return, I will plan on spending more time inside -- maybe 4 or 5 hours if they don't kick me out.


 * As for encyclopedic value, I think Janke's idea to put it in the sandstone article was an excellent one. The layering and color of the stone (visible in thumbnail, much more prominent at full resolution) are typical of the sandstone in the southwestern U.S., which is mentioned in the article. -- moondigger 21:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Support An excellent shot. Brilliant! Mr. Turcotte  talk  20:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Support lovely depiction of sandstone :p Stevage 21:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Support wonderful--Vircabutar 06:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Excellent addition to the sandstone article. Not worthy as an Antelope Canyon FP, but superb for the subject at hand. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 08:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Support great photograph Anonymous  _anonymous_  Have a Nice Day  11:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose It's a great picture but I just don't think it's quite the best of the best. --Mad Max 04:25, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak support as per Dante Alighieri. But adding it to article Red is a bit of a stretch. --P199 23:55, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Great picture and pretty high resolution. I especially enjoy good landscape pictures. G . H  e  04:57, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Very detailed picture. -- Pil o  t|  guy  (  roger that  ) 19:14, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Support That is an amazing picture. Nicholasink 21:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Support =Nichalp   «Talk»=  09:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Support Nice depiction of Sandstone, but angle could have been better. Advanced 17:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Beautiful colors and amazing rock! fpwannabe
 * user only has edits on FPC --Fir0002 07:42, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Support: I love these kind of pictures! This is one of the better ones I've seen. --Nebular110 19:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

(Note: Ignoring vote by the user who has only contributed on FPC.) Depending on how 'weak' votes are counted, this is either +14/-3 or +15/-4. If it were a closer vote I wouldn't promote my own image, but in this case I don't think it will be a problem, per the advice I got on the FPC talk page. -- moondigger 01:30, 18 June 2006 (UTC)