Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Petrified forest log

Petrified Forest log

I took this picture while vacationing with my family last summer. It appears in Petrified Forest National Park, and a cropped version appears in Fossil. It's a good image to show the results of the permineralization process, though Wikipedia doesn't currently have an article specifically on permineralization. Somebody on Commons liked it enough that he made it the Commons POTD for July 31, and nominated it for featured status there (which it attained). It has also been picked up for use in the Spanish-language edition of Wikipedia in the article Fósil.

Self-nominate and support. - moondigger 19:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I suggest cropping the image in order to eliminate the sky. It certainly provides for an interesting background but is rather unnecessary and does not enhance the object of focus. 67.37.183.142 20:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The cropped version you suggest already exists -- it's the version in the Fossil article. However I think the full frame version with the sky is more useful and aesthetically pleasing in the Petrified Forest National Park article. (It demonstrates both the primary attraction in the park and the scenery.) -- moondigger 21:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support - leave the background in, thats why that pic works in Petrified Forest National Park, because it shows the log and the park in one pic. -Ravedave 21:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes, leave the background in. I think it does add to the picture. --Nebular110 03:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Yes, leave the background in. That way it also illustrates the park article instead of just the log and it adds to the aesthetically pleasing-ness. - Mgm|^(talk) 07:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice job...and precedence for support as well due to that status already attained at commons.--MONGO 07:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is already one picture of petrified wood in FP. Olegivvit 11:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Absolutely beautiful. I went to a petrified forest which had been blown over by a volcano, but it was nothing compared to this. Wow. I no problem with having two featured pics of petrified wood, it becomes a problem when there is four or five. --liquidGhoul 15:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Great shot. No EXIF info? What was the focal length? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

10mm, on a camera with a 1.6X crop factor = 16mm equivalent. It lacks EXIF data because Photoshop's "save for web" command strips out all non-image data (including metadata) to minimize file size and allow for faster downloads. -- moondigger 22:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Very fine - the sky adds colour harmony and contrast, plus sky cloud and stone/wood texture. Great colour! - Diana — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.195.25.247 (talk • contribs)
Support The park inclusion makes the background worthwhile, though the clouds are a bit dark for my taste. The subject is fantastic, however. Staxringold _talk^contribs 20:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support cool passes in my book--Childzy_talk^contribs 22:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support exactly as it is, that makes an amazing addition to the article. --Cyde↔Weys 02:41, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Great picture. I love the sky in the background. -- Underneath-it-All 04:19, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice pic, better than the existing image: Image:Petrified wood closeup 2.jpg which I think should be delisted as it has been superceded. --Fir0002 12:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment i see what you are saying but to be honest i think they should both be kept as Image:Petrified wood closeup 2.jpg shows the tree in immense detail, whereas the pic here is good for seeing the complete effects.--Childzy_talk^contribs 21:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support That's awesome. Barnas 18:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Petrified_forest_log_1_md.jpg Raven4x4x 07:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]