Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Lajedo de Pai Mateus - Pedra do Capacete.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:Lajedo de Pai Mateus - Pedra do Capacete.jpg, not featured[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Sep 2015 at 16:06:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Astronomy
Info created and uploaded by Ruy Carvalho - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:06, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Support The iconic Pedra do Capacete (Helmet Stone) with the Milky Way in the background. A fantastic and unique place; such rock formation is only found in Devil's Marbles on the Australian Outback, Erongo Mountains in Namibia and the Hoggar region in Algeria. Yes, I know that the quality isn't the best, but like here, "exceptional images may sometimes not be of extremely high quality". Personally, when I find the atmosphere of this one, I think I'm on Mars or on a planet that is still to discover. In short: great and wowed moment. Inspired by this nomination. -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:06, 10 September 2015 (UTC)- Support I'm mad that you nominate this one now ; it puts my own to shame composition wise :) The part of the milky way which can be seen here is the galactic center : it's the brightest, and it makes it very dramatic. This has involved careful planning. Light painting is very nice, most parts of interest are lit and it has smooth transitions to dark areas. Noisy... but I think I've expanded enough on that matter on my own nom. - Benh (talk) 17:32, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Comment to @Benh: Please, could you fix the noise and CA? 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 10:04, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
- Arion, I can arrange things generally speaking but I can't do magic :( It's not so good to start from a jpeg, and I see what I believe to be compression artifacts despite the large size, and it's going to be hard to get rid of them. It would be better if you can get in touch with author. I'll give it a try, but don't expect miracles. - Benh (talk) 16:27, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
- Arion, I've given it a try, and I can't improve it with my skills... Sorry. The coma is quite an issue, but the compression artifacts is the most annoying thing about that picture. - Benh (talk) 07:05, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
- Support Arion wise choice. But you can reshot it, in winter sensor heat less, low temp - less noise, clear sky. This elephant help much in compo. --Mile (talk) 18:06, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
- Comment Noisy. Could be denoised a bit more. Every star has a chromatic aberration, I think it could be improved.--Jebulon (talk) 19:59, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
- Info For those interested, I'm fairly certain we talk about Coma here. - Benh (talk) 21:07, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
- Support Noisy again, but yes, it was a 30-second exposure. Daniel Case (talk) 21:55, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
- Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 02:12, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
- Support --El Grafo (talk) 11:02, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
- Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:24, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
- Support --Yann (talk) 16:32, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
- Support Nice nimination :) --Laitche (talk) 20:08, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
- Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:53, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
strong oppose, the photo was to illustrate the Lajedo de Pai Mateus, but this do not represented the whole location, don't have scale, don't have faithful colours... In addition to that, technically this sucks, stars are blurred, a huge amount of noisy, chromatic aberration, nothing sharp. None one here opened the photo in full screen?????????? This is just a good photo... for Instagram. -- RTA 04:21, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
- OK it has flaws, but big wow IMO. All have been said for mitigating reasons, but if you still don't think this is "quite good", maybe trying to replicate this kind of shot someday will help you realise? - Benh (talk) 08:12, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
- See this one. A FP with almost the same quality as this picture. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 08:50, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
- ... and it shouldn't have received so many supporting votes imho. Like this one, really nice at 50% view, awfull at 100%. Sting (talk) 01:15, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
- Sting, if you're referring to the FP, I think it was a 80 megapixels picture... It doesn't get much better than this for a milky way. We're not at pixel peeper candidates. - Benh (talk) 16:27, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
- Yes I was refering to the FP: what's the point to bring here a 60MP image with that quality at 100%? Hot pixels weren't even corrected! I'm surprised by your position Benh. Featured Pictures are supposed to be the finest ones on the project, by their subject as well as technical quality and this not only at a 50% viewing. Sting (talk) 22:50, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
- I understand it might seem useless to leave a picture at large size when it's this noisy. But better too big than too small. And featured pictures shall be about any subject, not just the ones that are sharp and noise friendly. If we oppose based on noise alone, we wouldn't have any starry or milky way shots (I mean the one with a ground component, if it's sky alone, we can use tracking motor, but it's still out of reach for many). - Benh (talk) 11:42, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
- @Benh: "maybe trying to replicate..." ¬¬, this is not a argument; I can't replicate 90% of the FPCs for many different reasons, but this do not validate the candidate... And no "featured pictures shall be about any subject", featured pictures shall be about the combination of excellent quality image (design to be a FP), and a excellent illustration of the subject; this images fails in both of them. -- RTA 04:49, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- RTA You probably can. I don't think there's no dark site you can easily enough access. If you don't want that's something else. What I mean is that if you haven't tried, do it, and you'll realise you can't catch something similar without noise. And of course an FP has to be a good illustration of the subject... but this subject can be any. I hope you don't disagree with that... not that I care if you do. - Benh (talk) 13:33, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- No Benh, I can't, some pictures here at FPC demands study, trips, equipment... that I do not have, again, this is not a argument. And "but this subject can be any", no at all, this is a illustration of Pedra do Capacete at Lajedo de Pai Mateus, and this photo is not good photo of that... what you're talking about is not making much sense any more.-- RTA 13:43, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- Comment I guess the supports were too sensitive for pixel peeping (including me), I'm not nagative to the C*lin's anti pixel peeping campaign but no need to be so sensitive for that :) --Laitche (talk) 21:29, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- Comment English description please. --Laitche (talk) 05:54, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Done. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 08:43, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose Strongly agree with RTA. An other question where does the light come from? Headlights of a car? doesn't look realistic, rather staged --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 09:46, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose Per opposers, and per my comment above.--Jebulon (talk) 14:27, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose --Low quality and with coma in the corners. Sting (talk) 01:17, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose per other opposers. --Cayambe (talk) 07:38, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose nice idea, but bad image quality: per other opposers. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 08:59, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose Nice composition. IMO too much noise and CAs at the stars. Sharpness could be better too.--XRay talk 09:55, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Laitche (talk) 08:00, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
