Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Mount St. Helens eruption

Mount St. Helens eruption

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Jun 2013 at 10:25:22 (UTC)

Original – Mount St. Helens during the 1980 eruption

Reason: EV, the corresponding article is featured.
Articles in which this image appears: 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens
FP category for this image: Natural phenomena/Others
Creator: USGS

Alt

Support as nominator --Brandmeister^talk 10:25, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I was eying this some time ago and wanted to nominate it, but I forget why I didn't. Solid, unique historical image, high resolution. I don't mind the digital manipulation used here (seems to have been a bit of levels and some brown/sepia toning). A little grainy but considering the subject I think that's understandable. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:17, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Honestly, I'm not entirely happy with this, given the existence of colour photos such as File:MSH80_st_helens_eruption_plume_07-22-80.jpg, as well as at least one more dramatic black and white on the USGS gallery linked, I'm not sure why this image gets the lead spot. There's a whole set of possible images we could use; this one doesn't seem as good as at least a few other options. This also has a few other problems: It has a tight crop, which lowers EV by removing any sense of scale, sepia toned is rather historically inappropriate for a 1980 photo, and perhaps most worrying, the credit line is "Austin Post, scanned photograph by USGS, cleaned by and adjusted by carol" - are we even sure we can use this? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 15:30, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I think this is Austin Post, who worked for the USGS. Chick Bowen 18:44, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Added alt which is also in the article (among the worthiest in USGS series in my view). Brandmeister^talk 21:34, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Both images seem really soft. Is this a product of scanning or something? I almost prefer the alt, but even then, I think whoever edited the "atmospheric overlay" really darkened that foreground. It should be possible to remove haze (light cyan) without killing all the detail. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 02:49, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Sorry. Crop too tight.TCO (talk) 20:16, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 16:16, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]