Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Sandstorm

Sandstorm

Reason: Illustrates the subject well, appears to be of good resolution/compression, I find it rather breathtaking
Articles this image appears in: Dust storm
Creator: Alicia M. Garcia
Nominator: Eyrian

Support — Eyrian 10:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. Very impressive, however the composition is rather poor. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 12:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Pharaoh Hound took the words out of my mouth. — Arjun 14:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral They're right about the composition. Though it may not be so supported here, taking the image into Photoshop, upping the contrast and color saturation, and perhaps using some of the stagelight filter things on the storm would make it a much more dramatic photo—if the composition is shot, a lot of times reworking the lighting can fix it. However I don't think such an image would pass if the original is here. drumguy8800 C T 16:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support very interesting image Sotakeit 17:11, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. Impressive subject, but poor composition and lighting. --Tewy 19:50, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support I know that the composition could make it look nicer but if you did change it that would take away from how it would really look in real life. I think it is a very interesting subject to pick.--¿Why 1 9 9 1 ^{ESP. | Sign Here} 22:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very impressive, has a few faults but it's such a clear example of a duststorm that I support - Adrian Pingstone 23:22, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very cool, but come on look at all the compression artifacts, especially on the trucks and in the sand --⁪froth^{T C} 23:22, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Cool subject...terrible composition. The trucks and tree and post make it a very low quality picture. --Midnight Rider 00:53, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Pretty cool picture, but i agree with the above statement of a low quality picture this shot was probably taken by a amateur photographer, but i think its cool enough to be a fetured picture. User:Voshvoshka
Support Very impressive and imposing picture. There are a few minor flaws, but none of them detracts from the picture. Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 03:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't see why the composition is so bad. It's a familiar sight- a military parking lot or vehicle depot, but with a massive, imposing sandstorm approaching. The foreground is a nice touch. --⁪froth^{T C} 05:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There's a lamp post and a tree right in front of the subject. --Tewy 08:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ah well I can see where you're coming from but they don't bother me much --⁪froth^{T C} 19:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - In my opinion, complaining about the lamp and the tree is a little bit ridiculous. C'mon, there's a sandstorm rushing towards the photographer!!!! He can't just walk around and find the best angle! (If another impressing picture of a sandstorm is nominated, which has a better angle, than I'm glad if I can support it. In the meantime, this is definitely a FP. -Wutschwlllm 13:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support ~~The questionable resolution is more than enough to compensate for the coolness and awe-inspiring nature of this picture.~~ Lol, whoops. The picture is so cool, the resolution problems can be overlooked. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 08:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, cluttered and underexposed foreground. Should be possible to find better pics (compositionwise) ([1] [2]). --Dschwen 15:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting, eye catching, and encyclopedic. The composition doesn´t doesn´t really bother me. It shows the environment of our troops in Iraq as well as the physics of a sandstorm. And its more than big enough. --Tobyw87 17:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support*, I took this photo in a rush. I have to agree that it's not a great photo and the composition is poor. However, my foremost concern when I took this photo was to take it and then put my camera away so that it would not be destroyed. For those of you who have never had to sit through one of these things, they are very destructive for electronic equipment. There may be better photos out there but most military photographers don’t shoot when sandstorms are coming because of the threat to gear. It would be cool to see this photo used by Wikapedia however, I am biased. I may have a higher resolution copy somewhere if neede. Statdard procedure is to drop the resolution of photos that are going to be posted on the web. AliciaGarcia81 18:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC) Alicia Garcia[reply]
- Comment (reworded). Your comments about the difficulty of the shot are valid, but since you are a new user, I have a suspicion that you created this account to pass off as the photographer. If that is the case, please stop. If not, then I apologize. And I apologize to those who commented on this. (--Tewy 04:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)) --Tewy 23:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Some awful bold statements for a sockpuppet.. what he/she said makes sense, and he/she offered a higher resolution version. Confirm with carlos on commons before biting the newb --⁪froth^{T C} 02:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Also check google, the corporal seems to be a legit marines photographer --⁪froth^{T C} 02:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Apologies. I didn't check the tag on the image page, and figured that Carlosar had taken the image. --Tewy 02:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sure, the composition could have been better, but considering the circumstances.... -Wutschwlllm 20:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, great pic, low quality Lycaon 22:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
support good pic Preetikapoor0 22:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Sandstorm.jpg Raven4x4x 07:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC) Image:Sandstorm.jpg[reply]