Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Infermir.jpg

Image:Infermir.jpg, not featured

•  Info Sunset Inferior Mirage. Please take a look how this sunset looked: created, uploaded and nominated by Mbz1 --Mbz1 15:01, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
•  CommentHave you ever seen a mirage of the setting Sun or the Moon or a mirage of torrential objects? I see them often and they are beautiful to see. For example, the sunset Sun in San Francisco is never round. It takes all amazing shapes and no two sunsets are the same. Today I'd like to offer to your attention the sequence of the most common inferior mirage. Sunset inferior mirage is common around the world, but not where I live. I see them only 2-3 times per year. The nominated sequence was taken in Hawaii, where I saw inferior mirage of the setting sun every clear sunset. Please notice that in order to see any mirage there should be something in the atmosphere between an observer and a mirage. That's why you cannot except the images to be as clear as of a normal sunsets. Still I believe the nominated image is very encyclopedic. Thank you.
•  Support --Mbz1 15:01, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
• {{resolution is lower than 2 million pixels}}
  • The photos are impressionning, but the quality is not here... 6 pictures of poor quality don't makes one of quality!!! Sanchezn 21:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
    • cannot agree less. The pictures represent the shapes the sun takes during inferior mirage sunset. Putting 6 images in one image is the only way to show the different shapes in the same image. I'd like to remind you the one of criterias for selection: A bad picture of a very difficult subject is a better picture than a good picture of an ordinary subject. The nominated image is a very good quality image. It is as good as it gets with mirages.Well, I assume that Sanchezn saw and photographed many mirages himself and knows what he's talking about complainong about the quality of the image.
      • I'm sorry, I won't heart you. When I say 6 pics of poor quality don't make one of quality, I would rather used "resolution" instead of "quality". You're true, I don't know how it's difficult to photographs the sun; I never tried because I haven't the appropriated lens. I see on other photos of the same subject taken by you that you use a 300mm lens, maybe it's not a sufficient focal length for this type of picture. Sanchezn 22:11, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
        • There's nothing to be sorry about. In my opinion the resolution of the image was enough to show the shapes of the sun, but, if community disagree, it is fine with me. I could have posted a higher resolution image. As a matter of fact I did upload it already, but then I decided what for? Probably the bigger zoom would have done a better job, but I have only a bad mirror lense with 500mm. I'm not sure I'd like to get a better lens just to make an image FP. After all quite a few of my sunset mirage images, taking with 300mm lens, were published at NASA sites.Btw looks like it did automatic update of the nominated image because the new image I uploaded had the same name. So now we do have a higher resolution image.--Mbz1 23:01, 30 September 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
•  Comment I think this would be much better as an animated GIF of the sequence. Doodle-doo Ħ 21:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Comment I agree, this would be much better as an animated GIF. --Digon3 ^talk 02:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Support The original image was 3Mpixel, the new version is 7.5Mpixel, the {{FPX}} is factually incorrect. I know it has been withdrawn, but I vote in support of it anyway. :-) --Tony Wills 07:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Thank you, Tony. I believe that if nothing else at least the sequence deservs its day in court.--Mbz1 12:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
    • don't forget the black bands... Sanchezn 18:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose For the reasons I explained on top. I have nothing to do with 3 or 7.5 Mpixel, there is 6 pictures, each occups 20% of the surface => 6 pics < 1.6 Mpixel, and visibly the new version is only a scaled and smoothed version (I prefer the previous version). Sanchezn 18:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • • It is not 'six pictures' it is one composite image (do you care how small the components that are glued together to make a panorama are?). We are evaluating a single image illustrating a natural phenomena, not component parts. If you wish to complain about large blank areas etc that's another matter, but the image in question indeed meets arbitrary size demands. --Tony Wills 20:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Please take a look at this image or maybe you would like to calculate how megapixels a fly takes on this image . What I'm trying to say is that in my opinion we cannot apply megapixels requirements to the subject of the image.In my opinion it is wrong.--Mbz1 19:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Thank you for you comments, everybody. Please notice that even, if I'm to do the animation the resolution of it will be lower than 2 megapixels, or the quality will be lost.I'm afraid it is how it goes with taking pictures of sunset sun. I cannot use any filter and I'm not sure I'd like to spoil my sensor and demage my eyes with a bigger zoom. Let's say I nominated this image . It is inferior mirage sunset scenery. Still the sun is relatively small. --Mbz1 19:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
      • I see that having different opinion than your is forbiden. For the moon, I'm sorry but I think the quality doesn't come from the photographs but from the composition. Behind shooting, he does a great job to put them all together, there is a big value added. On your picture the composition is bad, the photographs are not aligned (on QIC, some people oppose just because a tilt of less than 2°)... For the fly there is no problems, there would be if he put 6 pictures together to make a bigger one. Sorry again for having an opinion different of your. Sanchezn 20:49, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Sure you could have a different opinion(s). Nothing is forbiden at Wikipedia. One could talk about the subject that he has never seen not only in real life, but not even in pictures. One could change opinion in every comment from resolution to quality to composition and so on. Am I allowed to have my own opinion too? Thank you. So, in my opinion FP have lived for many years without displaying sunset mirage and it will live for many more years without it just fine. On the other hand my sunset mirage pictures are all over the NET, at least one was published in a magazine, so the people, who are interested in mirages would be able to find them.I really cannot care less, if the image is to pass, or it is not, yet in my opinion the image should not have been FPX. It was my last comment for the nomination. Thank you, everybody --Mbz1 22:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)Mbz1

 Support For an encyclopedia images like these can be priceless. I hate making the argument that utility is more important than beauty but, as I already mentioned, these images are for encyclopedias. Calibas 03:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

•  Oppose Six very similar pictures, why? Maybe greater time distance between snaps could help...? --Karelj 20:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  • !!?? It's a time sequence showing very clearly the progression of the phenomena. --Tony Wills 22:03, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Thank you for your question, Karelj. I believe it was my fault. I see mirages relatively often and sometimes it is hard to look at the image with the eyes of a person, who sees a mirage for the first time. I should have explained better what is inferior mirage and where to look for changes. Inferior mirage of the setting sun looks more or less the same in different sunsets. The initial part of an inferior mirage sunset, which is shown in the nominated image is the most interesting part in my opinion. After 2 Suns (a lower one and an upper one) get together nothing much happens. Sometimes in the very end of inferior mirage sunset, you could see a very rare and very beautiful green flash . Mock mirage sunsets are different. No 2 sunsets are the same and no 2 shapes of the same sunset are the same as you could see from this Mock Mirage Sunset Sequence--Mbz1 22:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
•  Oppose Bad quality. Sure is valuable for the encyclopedia, but not featured. Acarpentier 03:10, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Have you opposed all my images yet, Acarpentier? Please make sure do not miss one and remember in a worse case scenario, you could always ask for help from one of your "clones - co-workers".--Mbz1 16:55, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
    • I think you have problem with me. Anyway my vote here is on the work. You are mixing things together, I'm not. If you don’t want comments don't post. Please read the Guidelines for nominators. Acarpentier 23:16, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
•  

result: withdrawn => not featured. --Pumpmeup 08:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)