Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Lajedo de Pai Mateus - Pedra do Capacete-Edit.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:Lajedo de Pai Mateus - Pedra do Capacete-Edit.jpg, not featured
[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Dec 2015 at 21:40:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Astronomy
Info First nomination. Noise reduced by Poco a poco. This kind of picture has been nominated at FPC: 1, 2, 3. Created and uploaded by Ruy Carvalho (edited by Poco a poco) - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:40, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Support What do you think about this one, Kruusamägi? -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:40, 16 December 2015 (UTC)- Support --Yann (talk) 22:01, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support Kruusamägi (talk) 22:52, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support --Medium69 You wanted talk to me? 01:26, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support Again, noise perfectly forgivable when the shutter is open for 30 seconds. Daniel Case (talk) 03:22, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Comment - Help me with this a little. It looks great as a thumbnail and still looks quite good at the largest size that fits entirely on my screen, but the entire picture is fuzzy when I look at full resolution. For example, and I hope my choice of words doesn't seem insulting, but a lot of the stars look like blotches. I know you have very demanding standards in judging photos, so please give me insight into how are you appraising this one. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:50, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
- Second thought, on looking at the Perseid shower photo again: I guess these two photos really are comparable in fuzziness at full resolution, and this photo does look excellent at lower resolutions. I suppose I'll vote to Support it, too. Maybe the approximate size of the rock should be noted, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:00, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
- What kind of terrain is this, though? The colors seem unusual to me. Is it moonlit? Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:02, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
- Second thought, on looking at the Perseid shower photo again: I guess these two photos really are comparable in fuzziness at full resolution, and this photo does look excellent at lower resolutions. I suppose I'll vote to
- Support It's in Brasil, isn't it? --Neptuul (talk) 09:45, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Strong opposition! - Again? This photo still have all the problems that I listed before, he didn't use Mathematica to create this photo, this start trail is a mistake, longer exposure that should be. Clearly the intention was not create trails, was to froze the moment. The sharpness on the rock is non-existent. This photo works in 720p, not the in minimum resolution that we demand, and works for beauty propose, we don't have the scale, for educational one, no, this is giant rock, seems to be a small one in front of a camera. [Edit conflict] and it's obvious that is Brazil, otherwise Arion would not insisting that much. -- RTA 10:04, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
- @Rodrigo.Argenton: It's obvious that is a Arion's nomination, otherwise RTA would not insisting that much. Take the opportunity to oppose here too (the same quality). Or not oppose? 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 12:27, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
- It's not the same quality, it's also not a FP, but this passive aggressive posture is ridiculous. -- RTA 13:05, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
- "Perseiid.jpg" has clearly better quality. Kruusamägi (talk) 12:47, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
- @Kruusamägi: I think that, if reduced the color noise, it will certainly be better. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 13:32, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
- @Rodrigo.Argenton: It's obvious that is a Arion's nomination, otherwise RTA would not insisting that much. Take the opportunity to oppose here too (the same quality). Or not oppose? 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 12:27, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:55, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support Ggia (talk) 07:12, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose Per RTA. --Kikos (talk) 09:51, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose very pity, but the quality is still too bad: JPG artefacts. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 15:21, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose I´m thinking about this image for three days now, opened it three times. There is wow, a lot of, but the technical quality is too low for me.--Hubertl 15:58, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose As before.--Jebulon (talk) 11:32, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose There's only about 1MP of image detail. Not sufficient for FP. Buy a Astronomy Photographer of the Year book and you'll see better photos in fine detail. -- Colin (talk) 13:02, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 11:20, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
