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.

• Nominate and support. - Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• 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 • Talk 20:26, 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. -- Mikeo 20:33, 29 January 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Support Thanks, the higher res version addresses both my concerns. ~ Veledan • Talk 17:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Oppose for now. 568x426 is not FP-ready. Interesting subject though. -- Dschwen 21:00, 22 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. -- Dschwen 21:30, 29 January 2006 (UTC) reply

• • Oppose- If there was a higher resolution then i would change my vote. -- ZeWrestler ^Talk 21:04, 22 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

Please check Wikipedia:What_is_a_featured_picture point 5. Sadly the wording leaves room for interpretation, but if you look at previous nominations you'll find a good consensus that anything <800px will be kicked out.-- Dschwen 10:49, 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

• Support - I like it, even although I am still going to support, I feel it's on the small size. ^KILO-_LIMA 21:00, 23 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Oppose Will support larger version if available. ~ MDD 46 96 23:29, 23 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Support ~ MDD 46 96 05:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC) reply
• Oppose. Would reconsider if resolution is boosted. -- Neutrality ^talk 03:11, 24 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Oppose Too small, and needs a person to give scale - Adrian Pingstone 16:00, 24 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Oppose - Postage stamp.-- Deglr6328 17:39, 24 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Support Small but very nice. -- Lewk_of_Serthic 02:42, 26 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Oppose. Too small to see details. enochlau ( talk) 09:17, 26 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
• Oppose. Too small... I'd give this one an unconditional support though, if a higher res image showed up. -- Dante Alighieri | Talk 09:27, 28 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 | Talk 07:35, 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. -- Dschwen 10:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply

• Support just uploaded 2272x1704 version, I also like it, photographing conditions were quite hard -- Mikeo 10:27, 29 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 like it -- Chris 73 | Talk 15:23, 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-- MONGO 17:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Support Very informative AND nice looking Eyesclosed 17:27, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Support per Chris 73 and MONGO-- Jonthecheet 02:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC) reply
• Support I like it. Its cool in a hot lava tube way. Pschemp | ^Talk 07:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC) reply
• Support Resolution problem fixed. I approve. -- ZeWrestler ^Talk 17:14, 4 February 2006 (UTC) reply

Promoted Image:Thurston Lava Tube.jpg Raven4x4x 05:33, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply