Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:A starry sky above Death Valley and Orionid.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:A starry sky above Death Valley and Orionid.jpg[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Dec 2009 at 17:52:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info everything by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 17:52, 13 December 2009 (UTC)- Info We have no single meteor featured I believe, so here it is: Multicolored w:meteor w:Orionid is exploding over Death Valley National Park
Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 17:52, 13 December 2009 (UTC)- Support Amazing. --AFBorchert (talk) 19:21, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Oppose It really is much too noisy, consider using lower ISO than 1600. I suppose you used a tripod, why didn´t you take ISO 100 and a long exposure time? Nikopol (talk) 23:09, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- I guess, you've never taken a picture of a meteor.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:22, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry, I didn´t realise the meteor is the important thing, must have somehow skipped this part of the explanation. But IMO the capture of the meteor does not quite make up for that amount of noise. Nikopol (talk) 23:46, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- Hi Nikopol, just check the date when this photograph was taken: 22 October 2007. As you can check out from this table, Mbz1 apparently planned this photograph carefully by journeying to the Death valley exactly when an Orionid shower was to be expected and where, given the extremely dry air and the absence of artificial light, you get fine conditions for photographing the night sky. Given the speed of the meteors, the selection of ISO 1600 (at an exposure time of 8s) sounds quite sensible to me. --AFBorchert (talk) 00:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- When I was taking the images I was mostly thinking about capturing as many meteors as possible even very faint ones because the images are used for recerch. I used fisheye in order to capture as much sky as possible. The lens aperture is 3.5. To capture faint meteors with such a lens and such an aperture I should have used ISO 1600. I did not care about noise. My bad, how I forgot about FPC
That's OK I should have learned a long time ago never to nominate for FPC something that is special to me :)--Mbz1 (talk) 00:47, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- When I was taking the images I was mostly thinking about capturing as many meteors as possible even very faint ones because the images are used for recerch. I used fisheye in order to capture as much sky as possible. The lens aperture is 3.5. To capture faint meteors with such a lens and such an aperture I should have used ISO 1600. I did not care about noise. My bad, how I forgot about FPC
- Hi Nikopol, just check the date when this photograph was taken: 22 October 2007. As you can check out from this table, Mbz1 apparently planned this photograph carefully by journeying to the Death valley exactly when an Orionid shower was to be expected and where, given the extremely dry air and the absence of artificial light, you get fine conditions for photographing the night sky. Given the speed of the meteors, the selection of ISO 1600 (at an exposure time of 8s) sounds quite sensible to me. --AFBorchert (talk) 00:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose - Nothing featurable here, either the quality or the rarity -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:08, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- That's right, what could be featurable in the only image of a meteor to be present in FP images :) If it is feutered, it will be so lonely :) --Mbz1 (talk) 00:47, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
should have kept it to myself :)
Edit 1[edit]
- Support reduced noise and lost some stars in the process :(--Mbz1 (talk) 00:47, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
should have kept it to myself :)
Confirmed results:
