Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Tree example IR.jpg

Image:Tree example IR.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 May 2010 at 11:49:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/Image:Tree example IR.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Tree example IR.jpg

•  Info created by Dschwen - uploaded by Dschwen - nominated by Brackenheim
•  Support -- Brackenheim (talk) 11:49, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose: not sharp (out of focus for IR?), lots of noise --Bezur (talk) 12:13, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

IR photos normally require a quite long exposure time thus it is very difficult to get a tree sharp. --AngMoKio (talk) 12:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

•  Oppose - taken on too windy a day, given the long exposure needed (central branches sharp, outer foliage very badly motion-blurred). This photo shows that sharper IR pics of trees are achievable. Also no identification of the tree species. - MPF (talk) 13:54, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
•  Support it is an education photo of infrared photography Ggia (talk) 14:29, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

 Info in companion with the non-infrared photo

Ggia (talk) 14:41, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

•  Support Per Giga. We don't have many good IR photos. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 16:19, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
  • There's some rather better ones here with cc-by license which I'll be uploading later - MPF (talk) 16:52, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Quality is better? Most of them aren even 1MP, and the bigger ones have exactly the same problems as this one. --Dschwen (talk) 17:02, 13 May 2010 (UTC) P.S.: This picture gets its value from direct comparison with the visible light shot. The flickr stuff doesn't have that either. --Dschwen (talk) 17:03, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose Species unidentified and thus of less educational value. Okay example of infrared I guess, but not FP quality. Blurring is a problem, per MPF.  Neutral Steven Walling 19:45, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Again, value is in the direct comparison of IR and visible light pictures. Species is secondary at best. I did not try to illustrate the tree, merely the technique. The blurring is a consequence of the technique (due to the IR filtering), so it is not a flaw per see (not a bug, a feature ;-) ). --Dschwen (talk) 17:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
    • If the blurring was semi-intentional then I could live with the lack of species identification. You're correct that IR is the point here. Steven Walling 18:47, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose Pir6mon (talk) 08:48, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose The only reason for the long exposure is that the sensor in this camera has a filter that blocks IR. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:02, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Sure, so do basically all digital cameras. This picture illustrates the type of image you get due to that effect. I don't think it is up to commons FP standards either, but please reject it for the right arguments. --Dschwen (talk) 17:07, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Not everybody may know that; I made my comment because of what AngMoKio said. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:17, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose Thanks for nominating, but this is a six year old picture, taken with a small Powershot G3. Not up to current quality standards (neither are the Flickr pictures MPF linked). --Dschwen (talk) 17:02, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:33, 21 May 2010 (UTC)