Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Polarlicht 2.jpg

The Aurora Borealis or "Northern Lights"

 * Reason:The Image is of absolute amazing quality and has high encyclopedic value (It won the Commons Featured Pictures Contest in 2006) It is used in a few articles here on the en and from what I can see it truly seems to be one of our best pictures here on Wikipedia the quality is amazing as well as the composition.
 * Articles this image appears in:Aurora (astronomy), Wonders of the World, Natural phenomenon, Bear Lake (Alaska).
 * Creator:U.S. Air Force uploaded by Commons:User:Majestic


 * Support as nominator --Mifter (talk) 21:37, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Previous nomination here. TSP (talk) 22:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose Though visually pleasing as a thumbnail, when full, it's grainy, odd yellow spots in the snow, and bad lighting near the building in the back. Spencer  T♦C 02:00, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Support It is a beautiful picture. The yellow spots in the snow are being caused by the polar light, so they should be in their. Yes, the picture is a little grainy, but no picture is perfect. If you take in all other aspects of the picture, it still remains a featured picture in my opinion. I also don't find the graininess disturbing. P.S. Foul language doesn't improve the featured picture section either. Pay some respect to other people their opinions. Massimo Catarinella (talk)
 * Support - it's a stunning photo of the Aurora. None of the technical issues take away from this. Has enough serious encyclopedic wow to overcome any other problems - Peripitus (Talk) 05:56, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment, I think this image has been up and rejected before for the colors being too artificial... gren グレン 06:59, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Previous FPC nomination. --antilivedT 10:04, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Does anybody bother to read other comments? TSP's very first comment in this nom linked to the previous nom. --jjron (talk) 16:01, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Support It's a featured picture on 3 other language WPs and the Commons, surely there's enough good reasons. This is just a terrific photo, imo. Much better than the original. ¢rassic ! (talk) 19:09, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose. It may be beautiful, but the quality just doesn't cut it. Look at the back tree line, for instance: it's practically a smear of color, not anything distinctive. Nautica Shad es  21:19, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. In spite of minor imperfections, it portrays the northern light wonderfully, which is the essence of the photo. Lampman  Talk to me! 01:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Support I agree that it is an excellent example of an aurora, and infact for this kind of long exposure photography the quality of the image is surprisingly good. The only thing which I'm not sure on is the WB issues raised in the previous nom. This image looks better than the original from the previous nom, but it'd be good to have the photographer's take on the WB as it's hard to judge. Unfortunately we can't judge the WB based on the snow as it would have been tinged by the aurora and hence not a neutral tone. --Fir0002 08:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * All the others in the article have a greener tinge, making me think that the original colours may have been closer to the truth. I don't believe that a Nikon CCD from 2001 could have been this far off colour-wise, although CCD sensors do tend more towards warmer colours. Having said that, all the white balance algorithms used on this image seem to agree. But when looking at the stars in the sky, I can't find any consistent bias towards any hue. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 11:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose Too heavily edited. Narayanese (talk) 18:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose As per previous nomination Alokprasad84 (talk) 06:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Support per Fir's comments. Clegs (talk) 15:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Support as I did before. Stunning visual image. Completely natural colors are pretty impossible to get in a situation like this. Just go and re-shoot this, see how easy it is... ;-) --Janke | Talk 07:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose no sources to prove color correction from original is accurate, seems to be original research Thisglad (talk) 10:11, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose Too heavily shopped. smooth0707  (talk) 14:42, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Support A beautiful subject, I guess difficult to catch. Quality is more than good enough to me. Colours accuracy is not really a concern to me, seems good, and who could prove accuracy of the colours for all current FP ? Blieusong (talk) 15:53, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Hetar 23:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC) MER-C 03:33, 12 July 2008 (UTC)