Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Mendenhall Glacier

Mendenhall Glacier

Great, striking image of the Mendenhall Glacier. Shows (1) recent calving, (2) Rayleigh scattering, and this is minor, but it shows the truly typical weather for the region, being rainy about 250 days a year. The fog and cloud hole allowing a shaft of light to get through add some artistic balence. Taken by Andrew Pendleton, he has released it under the GFDL after an email exchange, he wanted to make sure he retained attribution under the liscense.

Nominate and support. - M^ask 04:01, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Does anyone think some of the foreground should be cropped out? - JPM | 06:02, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, me, about 50%. --Dschwen 06:50, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Edges fuzzy in full size, and some compression artifacts. Also, contrast could be better. --Janke | Talk 06:04, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, a photo like this really shouldn't be opposed until someone that knows there way around Photoshop can get in there and clean it up. Phoenix2 21:40, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Why not? No photosouping can fix the artifacts and out-of-focus edges. --Janke | Talk 08:39, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. the cropped composition is better. psch e mp | talk 05:49, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support the cropped version L e idi ot 09:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Justthefacts 11:41, 2 April 2006 (UTC)I agree with the 'do not oppose' - Sure it might need some tweeking, but hey, just imagine being there when 'you'took that shot! It really states the diverse complexities and simplicities of our 'intelligenly designed' world. We are looking at the finger of God.

I always thought the finger of God would look something like this - JPM | 03:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - no doubt very impressive in real life but not in this picture. Poor lighting, too much shadow. -- P199 20:53, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm the person who took this picture, and I agree that the lighting wasn't the best, however, I'd just note that because of some physics that's a bit beyond me, the blue color of the ice doesn't really show up well under direct sunlight (in fact, you can see it in here in the well-lit upper portion of the picture, where the ice appears white). So, while I agree that the picture would probably have been better under better lighting, the glacier would have looked white, and, hence, lost its encyclopedic value as relates to an article on Rayleigh scattering, where the blue color is really the relevant attribute of the picture. ABPend 04:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. It's informative, but I'm afraid it doesn't do anything for me visually. Stephen Turner (Talk) 16:01, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 02:20, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]