Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pale Blue Dot.png

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

File:Pale Blue Dot.png, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Dec 2011 at 17:41:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  •  Support as this image is the most distant image of the Earth ever recorded, making it a "historical or otherwise unique image". It shows just how small our planet is in space - as it is taken from just outside the Solar System. The low resolution is a inherent in its creation, because of the device (Voyager 1) and the distance - from 6 billion kilometres away the Earth appears as a tiny speck, visible only at low resolution. Also, this picture is actually a blown up version of a much smaller image in which the Earth is essentially invisible, and the graininess results from that increase in size. It appears as NASA created and distributed it - no larger versions are available. It has very high encyclopedic value in illustrating Pale Blue Dot, and significant encyclopedic value as iconic image of the Voyager Program.
    From the 'pedia nom. - Benzband (talk) 17:41, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose We had a nom of this a few months ago. I haven't changed my mind since. I'm not the "modern abstract art" kind of guy. There's a huge technical challenge behind this, but you really have to have the explanation beside to get the whole meaning of it. But otherwise, I only see noise (something I could pretty much mimick by taking a picture in the dark with ISO pushed as far as 12800) - Benh (talk) 18:20, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Agree with Benh. Colin (talk) 19:18, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose "one" excellent blue pixel, but not that noisy image. It can be perhaps a very VI image. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 02:19, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Rules can be broken and all, but I really see this 100% more a valuable image than a featured picture. No composition, colouring, sharpness, quality, there's noise and chromatic mess. I'm sorry but despite its value, I really don't see it as a FP. --Paolo Costa (talk) 03:55, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Info nearly identical version already declined. --ELEKHHT 03:57, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Strong support I can't believe that this image is opposed purely on technical merit. Of course is noisy and withoud details. The earth is a tiny pixel - that's the point, d'oh. Please read Reflections by Sagan, maybe you'll change your mind. --Lošmi (talk) 07:25, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think is "purely on technical merit". The image does not work as photography, all the encyclopaedic value (well recognised on Wikipedia) is in the caption, as already explained by Benh. --ELEKHHT 07:56, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it was not your intention, but "that's the point, d'oh" doesn't sound too polite, does it? I know that's the point, but I still don't see it as a FP sorry. --Paolo Costa (talk) 14:52, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I guess not, but it's not polite to oppose this image based on sharpness and noise as well :D This image is about feeling you get by how and why it was made, and what it represents. Simple "No wow", would be much more sencere reason for opposing, IMO. I don't think that every image should be judged solely on visuals. What's wrong if you must read a description sometimes? For example, lots of images in this category requires reading the description to get what they represent, this one is featured because of it's historical significance, etc. --Lošmi (talk) 19:28, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand how you feel about that, but the feelings you talk about, they come only after reading the explanations, and the picture don't add much (if at all) to them. If I show anyone the picture and give no caption on it, I bet no one will feel as you expect. Photo can convey feelings close to or stronger than reality. IMO, this one doesn't compare to how small I feel when I look up and see a clear starry sky. - Benh (talk) 21:39, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When I think about featuring or not I think: if I was a random visitor of Commons and wanted to see the best pictures, would I expect this one to be there? Or would it be better placed in a section called "valued images"? That's the reason why I give a lot of weight to the technical part. This picture has its own amazing story, but I just see a lot of disturbing random dots. I remember taking a picture of an incredible starry sky far away from the city, in amazonia some two years ago... that night I stayed up for hours just looking at the sky in meditation. Then I came home, watched and edited the ISO1600 pictures and in the end I remember thinking those pics were just an awful mess. I did not place them among my best pictures despite the value of the moment. The text is awesome, but I don't picture the image in the FP gallery. So that's how I see it. --Paolo Costa (talk) 22:48, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 07:27, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Pale_Blue_Dot.png&oldid=63367726"