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.
Support as nominator ----LordSunday 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).
DurovaCharge! 20:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)reply
CommentOppose 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.
DurovaCharge! 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.
DurovaCharge! 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.
DurovaCharge! 22:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)reply
Thanks for the help, Durova. --LordSunday 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
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
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.
Support as nominator ----LordSunday 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).
DurovaCharge! 20:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)reply
CommentOppose 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.
DurovaCharge! 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.
DurovaCharge! 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.
DurovaCharge! 22:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)reply
Thanks for the help, Durova. --LordSunday 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
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