Thurston Lava Tube, Hawai'i Volcanoes National Park, Island of Hawai'i, USA
Interesting colors and textures, excellent depth, and shows dripstone well on lower right wall. It has good resolution considering that it is illuminated only by the lights installed in the tube. This lighting contributes to the quality of the image, in my view. It appears in the article
Lava tube. Michael Oswald created the image. License is Commons PD-self.
Can you get a higher res version? This one is too small to have a chance of being an FP. Also, I appreciate that lighting may have been a challenge but I have to say I don't think there's much to distinguish this visually from any old cave pic, and I've seen far more beautiful cave pics. Is there no perspective a lava tube coud be photographed from that would bring its more singular qualities to the fore? I think the close-up you uploaded tells me more about lava tubes but that isn't FP quality either ~
Veledan •
Talk20:26, 22 January 2006 (UTC)reply
now, Hi-Res (2272x1704) version is available, I think the perspective is OK, as it is also showing that lava has once been flowing in that tube. I had to use ISO 400, so a slight noise can be seen. --
Mikeo20:33, 29 January 2006 (UTC)reply
New version hardly shows any additional detail. I fail to see what sets this tube apart from any other ordinary tunnel/cave. --
Dschwen21:30, 29 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support I see no rules that say there's any particular size requirements. The image is informative, interesting and probably hard to get (you know, lava and all that). -
Mgm|
(talk)10:39, 23 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Thanks for tracking down that link for me. Still think you're being too strict, though. BTW, did I miss that link, or isn't it in the lead of FPC anymore? -
Mgm|
(talk)10:04, 24 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Neutral now that there is a higher res version. I understand that it must have been hard to take, but unfortunately hard-to-takeness is not a criterion for FP. It's still somewhat unclear to see details, which are important in encyclopedia images, but it's better than what was there before.
enochlau (
talk)
23:35, 29 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. I'm not thrilled about the noise at this rez, but the larger image is still nice. Probably darn near impossible to do better under the conditions. --
Dante Alighieri |
Talk07:35, 30 January 2006 (UTC)reply
You should be able to get a sharp picture with a tripod and manual focus, noise could be reduced as well with a longer exposure time. A G3 can do better. --
Dschwen10:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)reply
One reason that I nominated this image is that it is very much superior to my attempts to photograph this and similar subjects. I would like to see my fellow editors take into account the limitations imposed by the subject, e.g., low light level, a very dark, low-contrast subject with restricted viewpoints in this case. Even so, I would not have nominated it if I did not think it was a striking and informative image on its own merits. For example, the step mark on the right wall indicates the depth at which the lava flowed for a period of time. Regarding scale (brought up by another editor), the light diffusers on the left wall provide a good indication.
Walter Siegmund(talk)22:43, 29 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support I can only imagine the difficulty raised in the photographic attempts within cave like environments...every image I ever took appeared to be simply black holes, so this one is absolutely excellent in comparison--
MONGO17:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Thurston Lava Tube, Hawai'i Volcanoes National Park, Island of Hawai'i, USA
Interesting colors and textures, excellent depth, and shows dripstone well on lower right wall. It has good resolution considering that it is illuminated only by the lights installed in the tube. This lighting contributes to the quality of the image, in my view. It appears in the article
Lava tube. Michael Oswald created the image. License is Commons PD-self.
Can you get a higher res version? This one is too small to have a chance of being an FP. Also, I appreciate that lighting may have been a challenge but I have to say I don't think there's much to distinguish this visually from any old cave pic, and I've seen far more beautiful cave pics. Is there no perspective a lava tube coud be photographed from that would bring its more singular qualities to the fore? I think the close-up you uploaded tells me more about lava tubes but that isn't FP quality either ~
Veledan •
Talk20:26, 22 January 2006 (UTC)reply
now, Hi-Res (2272x1704) version is available, I think the perspective is OK, as it is also showing that lava has once been flowing in that tube. I had to use ISO 400, so a slight noise can be seen. --
Mikeo20:33, 29 January 2006 (UTC)reply
New version hardly shows any additional detail. I fail to see what sets this tube apart from any other ordinary tunnel/cave. --
Dschwen21:30, 29 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support I see no rules that say there's any particular size requirements. The image is informative, interesting and probably hard to get (you know, lava and all that). -
Mgm|
(talk)10:39, 23 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Thanks for tracking down that link for me. Still think you're being too strict, though. BTW, did I miss that link, or isn't it in the lead of FPC anymore? -
Mgm|
(talk)10:04, 24 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Neutral now that there is a higher res version. I understand that it must have been hard to take, but unfortunately hard-to-takeness is not a criterion for FP. It's still somewhat unclear to see details, which are important in encyclopedia images, but it's better than what was there before.
enochlau (
talk)
23:35, 29 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. I'm not thrilled about the noise at this rez, but the larger image is still nice. Probably darn near impossible to do better under the conditions. --
Dante Alighieri |
Talk07:35, 30 January 2006 (UTC)reply
You should be able to get a sharp picture with a tripod and manual focus, noise could be reduced as well with a longer exposure time. A G3 can do better. --
Dschwen10:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)reply
One reason that I nominated this image is that it is very much superior to my attempts to photograph this and similar subjects. I would like to see my fellow editors take into account the limitations imposed by the subject, e.g., low light level, a very dark, low-contrast subject with restricted viewpoints in this case. Even so, I would not have nominated it if I did not think it was a striking and informative image on its own merits. For example, the step mark on the right wall indicates the depth at which the lava flowed for a period of time. Regarding scale (brought up by another editor), the light diffusers on the left wall provide a good indication.
Walter Siegmund(talk)22:43, 29 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support I can only imagine the difficulty raised in the photographic attempts within cave like environments...every image I ever took appeared to be simply black holes, so this one is absolutely excellent in comparison--
MONGO17:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)reply