Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Mount Saint Helens crater

Mount St. helens Crater

Reason: An excellent image of the highly encyclopedic topic of the illustrious Mount St. Helens. The subject is the lava dome building activity, there is also an animation at the source, but I feel that this still is better. Quite attractive to the human eye, black and white due to being taken by a rather primieval satellite.
Articles this image appears in: Mount St. Helens, 2004 and later volcanic activity of Mount St. Helens
Creator: IKONOS satellite

Support as nominator ----Lord Sunday 17:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Between the small size, black+white, and limited visual context, I don't think this is interesting enough to be an FP.--ragesoss (talk) 18:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support black and white photography is is better at depicting texture, and the EV here is dome growth. The image is within the size requirement (25% over minimum actually). Durova^Charge! 20:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~Oppose I don't understand this at all. Is it visible light or a thermal image? Why is the background all black? At first glance I was expecting it to link to Mount Saint Helens (some other planet or moon). --Uncle Bungle (talk) 21:01, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Visible light, I'd say. The crater has a glacier in it. Durova^Charge! 22:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - So the background was intentionally removed or it is the blackness of space? --Uncle Bungle (talk) 02:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - More likely a function of the light, exposure, and natural features. Snow is highly reflective. So in order to avoid blown whites and register texture it would be necessary to underexpose the remainder of the image. Durova^Charge! 03:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment How does a satellite take a photo of the mountain from the side? Wadester16 (talk) 21:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- An angle shot would result if the satellite path doesn't go directly over the mountain. Durova^Charge! 22:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help, Durova. --Lord Sunday 22:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. we've been getting some really unique pics on FPC lately. Intothewoods29 (talk) 23:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment needs a better caption... and mention of the satellites (to make clear it's not a doctored aerial) and do we know if the background was edited or that is how the satellite takes it raw? gren グレン 04:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very nice! ~~ ĈőмρǖтέŗĠύʎ890100 (t ↔ Ĕ ↔ ώ) ^{Review me!} 23:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
conditional Support per Gren, will review when the caption is fixed. --Pete Tillman (talk) 00:08, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. When I look through the extremely image rich Mount St. Helens article, the only thing that really catches my eye about this is to wonder why it's in there. In an image cull I suspect this will be one of the first to go. Personally I don't like the B&W, don't like the composition, and find it of only limited EV. --jjron (talk) 09:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus MER-C 08:31, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]