Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Solar glory at the steam from hot spring

Solar glory at the steam from hot spring



 * Reason:A good quality, interesting image that adds value to the articles it is used in
 * Articles this image appears in:Glory (optical phenomenon);Refraction;Diffraction
 * Creator:Mbz1


 * Support as nominator --Mbz1 (talk) 04:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Reluctant oppose photographer's shadow in frame. Otherwise a fine shot.  Durova Charge! 23:42, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Difficult to photograph this effect otherwise (not saying it isn't possible, but most photographs of this phenomenon *do* have the shadow of the photographer in them). Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 00:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Isn't the name given *because* it's around the head of the shadow? Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 07:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose All these light effects like glories, sun dogs and the like leave me cold, I'm afraid. It's probably a good photo of a difficult-to-photograph phenomenon, but it's not very attractive. And the vast majority of the photo is trees, sky, dirt and smoke. Stevage 02:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose While this picture does significantly contribute to the article, the image quality is mediocre: In the background, there is considerable chromatic aberration and blurriness. Also, the position of the solar glory is rather awkward; usually the most important object should be in the center of the picture, but in the two photos the solar glories appear slightly to the side and nearer to the bottom of the photo. Whilst I am certain that such phenomena are hard to capture in photos, the FP criteria does not take into account the "level of difficulty in taking the photo" when addressing image quality. Mimigu (talk) 03:15, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That's not strictly correct, perhaps it's not formerly defined in the criteria but it's commonly accepted that the difficulty of taking a photo is a factor. For example a building shot must be extremely well taken because a building is quite permanent and hence easy to revisit and reshoot. --Fir0002 10:04, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose The shadow's too much for me (in spite of the apparent difficulty of doing this shot otherwise). Sorry Sasata (talk) 06:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC) Per Mimigu. Sasata (talk) 07:32, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Um, have people bothered to read about what this is meant to be showing? Wouldn't it be more like impossible to do this shot without the shadow? To quote the first line of the article "A glory is an optical phenomenon appearing much like an iconic Saint's halo about the head of the observer", and from further down in the article "The colorful halo always surrounds the observer's own shadow" (emphasis added). Can't exactly get a halo around the shadow if there's no shadow there. I'm just saying... --jjron (talk) 07:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Good point, didn't read the article. Sasata (talk) 07:32, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you all very much for the votes and for comments. Special thanks to Jiron for taking the time to do my job and explain what is going on with the image and my shadow. Glory is an interesting phenomenon. Let's say two people are staying next to each other.Each of them will still be able to see a shodow of the other, but each of them will see the glory only around his own shadow. If one sees a glory around his head, he could be thinking that he's is very special. Not so fast. As you could see from this image File:Solar glory at hot springs moves after the camera.jpg I made an experiment and took the camera off my face. The glory on the picture moved to my camera shadow, but while my camera was taking an image of the glory around itself, I still saw the glory only around my head. Glories are more or less common from the air. It is quite rare to see a glory not from a plane. Yellowstone with its hot spring is the right place to try. I'm sure that 99.99% of the park visitors miss it because they do not know how and where to look for this. That's why I thought that it might be interesting to make FP from this image and to make more people learn about glories. Anyway... Thank you all again for the interest in the images.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:56, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Just to nitpick, the phenomenon must appear around the *observer's* shadow, but with creativity, that could be more interesting than merely the photographer's silhouette. If the photographer was standing in front of a statue, for instance... Stevage 00:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If a photographer was standing in front of a statue, the glory would not be seen. The only way to see a glory is to see your own shadow. The shadow of a statue will close your own shadow and the glory with it.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Note:When adding another image to a nomination page, it is best to place the wikicode for the image directly below the first image. This avoids creating whitespace in the page. See my change here and the difference before and after. Raven4x4x (talk) 23:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose - per Stevage and mimigu. They have some very strong points. Sorry - Fastily (talk) 05:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

MER-C 02:40, 1 March 2009 (UTC)