Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Sun pillar in San Francisco.jpg

Image:Sun pillar in San Francisco.jpg

•  Info Sun pillar
•  Info created , uploaded and nominated by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 19:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Comment The sun displays mock mirage, but it is hard to see because the sun is greately overexposed in order to show the whole lenght of the Sun pillar, which of course is not nearly as bright as the sun is. The subject of the image is Sun pillar. -- Mbz1 (talk) 19:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

 Support--Mbz1 (talk) 20:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

•  Comment How rare or difficult to observe or capture is this phenomenon anyways? Freedom to share (talk) 21:03, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you for your question, Freedom to share. Seeing the atmospheric optic phenomena in general and sun pillar in particular deppends on where you live. Because in order for sun pillar to form there should be ice crystalls of a particular shape in the atmosphere, it is much more common to see them far North, in Alaska, for example. They also could be observed in snowy mountains. In San Francisco I see sun pillars 3-4 times per year (and I observe almost all sunsets). Capturing them on film deppends on many things - brightness of the pillar, the presense of the sun and so on. Sun pillars are observed only at sunsets and sunrises and sometime 15-30 minutes after sunset or before sunrise. At my image the sun was still up and of course taking image of a pillar against the sun is not easy. At the same time as I said many times before I do not consider myself to be a good photographer. I am a so-so photographer, but, when I see an atmospheric optic phenomena I take pictures and do my best to share them with as many people as possible because I'd like, if somebody would see something like this himself, he would know what he's looking at.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

•  Support ~ Idiot (talk) 14:41, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

result: 2 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 07:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Alternative 1 , not featured

•  Support--Mbz1 (talk) 02:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Beautiful and interesting. Vassil (talk) 17:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Support per above. This one (being as it is approximately 8:5 (or 16:10 as it's often put) would also be a good one for Category:Commons featured widescreen desktop backgrounds. -- Korax1214 (talk) 10:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

 Comment I would like to know why there doesn't seem to be any category for widescreen wallpapers which are non-FP, as there is for 4:3 non-FP wallpapers. Blatant aspect discrimination. :-) -- Korax1214 (talk) 10:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I added the category to the image. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:38, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

•  Support Ianare (talk) 04:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Support ~ Idiot (talk) 14:41, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose Not sharp and noisy. Nice colours though, but that is not enough for FP IMO. Lycaon (talk) 21:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

• Please notice the image was not nominated because of the colorus. The image was nominated to illustrate Sun pillar- an interesting, litlle known atmospheric phenomena. Sun pillar is produced by the reflection of light from ice crystals. The sun pillar is the subject of the image and it is as sharp as it could be.I see no noise in the image except from the waves crashing ashore. :-)--Mbz1 (talk) 22:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

• I suppose, but that phenomenon only covers 1.64% of the whole picture !!. the rest is sunset and pretty colours. Lycaon (talk) 12:27, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

• Dear Hans, phenomenons are usually small and rare.Theta's why they are phenomenons. Let's take for example you supporting my images. It is so rare and such a small percentage (1.64%) compare to you opposing my images that it has all the rights to be called phenomenon. :-)--Mbz1 (talk) 12:50, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

•  Oppose Soft, low contrast (likely because of high ISO), dull. Crapload (talk) 01:45, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

•  Comment Pity I can't vote a second time. :( I think this would make a good widescreen desktop wallpaper (its low contrast is actually helpful in this respect) even if it's not quite FP material; but as noted above, as far as I've been able to discover there's no category for widescreen wallpapers generally (as there is for 4:3 wallpapers), there's only one for featured widescreen wallpapers. So to remain categorised as wallpaper, this image needs to win its FP vote. -- Korax1214 (talk) 12:01, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• Did anyone stop you from creating a new category Category:16:10 widescreen desktop backgrounds? Lycaon (talk) 12:05, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• I think Category:Widescreen desktop backgrounds would be better, as some screens (e.g. the laptop I'm typing on now) are 16:9 (1.78:1) rather than 16:10 (1.6:1), and the latter strictly speaking ought to be 8:5 anyway. Plus, manufacturers in the future might introduce monitors with the common cinematic 2.35:1 ratio. -- Korax1214 (talk) 13:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

•  Oppose nice colours and mood, but i have to agree with the others opposers. For that size quality is to low --Simonizer (talk) 07:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 08:12, 26 June 2008 (UTC)