Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bontecou Lake Milky Way panorama.jpg

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

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Oct 2019 at 22:39:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Panorama of the Milky Way galactic plane stretching over Bontecou Lake in Dutchess County, New York.
  • Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Astronomy#Sky
  •  Info created by Juliancolton - uploaded by Juliancolton - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 22:39, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Caught sight of this on the QI page and it's the kind of image that, for me at least, makes you stop scrolling and go 'wow.' I particularly like it because it seems more carefully composed than a lot of these Milky-Way panoramas you see (IMO better than the ones that are already FP). It's a bit noisy, as one would surely expect for ISO 6400, but I think it's worth a feature, especially seeing it's by a Commons user. See what you think.  Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 22:39, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you Cmao20 for the nomination. There are some technical flaws here—noisy shadows, trailing stars, distorted stitching in some areas. The first two may be mitigated somewhat by the relatively high resolution and lack of critical information in the bottom third of the frame; there's nothing to be gained by zooming in at 100% to study a generic pond in the dark. I do believe this has significant merit as an illustration of Milky Way visibility in suburban areas. This was photographed merely 90 miles from one of the largest and brightest cities in the Western Hemisphere, so it's nice to show that deep-sky observing is often much closer to major population centers than many individuals believe possible. If there is enough interest, I could take a stab at re-processing this with an eye for FP standards, ensuring a more level horizon, and taking care of hot pixels (mind, some of the yellow-green "hot pixels" are actually fireflies!). Not sure there's much more to be done about the high-ISO noise... even after pushing the exposure another couple stops in LR and further locally brightening the shadows, I'm relatively happy with the retained detail and acceptable quality of grain. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:54, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support - Make any improvements you like, but it's already an FP to me, because I find it excellent at 300% of my 13-inch laptop screen. I also really like how the curve of the Milky Way is echoed by the curve of the near shore of the lake, among many other nice things. And I've also done some observation of the night sky in Dutchess County, as my girlfriend has sung in the chorus at the Bard Summerscape. There is a little light pollution from Newburgh and Beacon, but most of the sky is quite clear in good weather. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:53, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ikan Kekek: Thank you, and you've got it exactly right. Although dark sites in the mid-Hudson Valley get a little harder to find each year, they still exist, and one can catch some beautiful views of the night sky. I'm glad you've had such an opportunity. It also helps to plan out times when the galactic core is in a relatively dark "direction" from desired observing spots. Like you say, light pollution is particularly problematic in the POU-SWF-MGJ corridor, so early summer is often best for Dutchess County, before the MW migrates too far southwest. Feel free to look me up the next time you're in town! –Juliancolton | Talk 15:31, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Charles, as already discussed on a previous nom of mine, we basically have 30 sec to shoot a picture with a wide angle lens (as it is the case here as well), and very little light. Expose longer than that, and the stars have moved too much and render as very noticeable trails. So that means highest acceptable ISO, and biggest aperture. Both are not quality friendly, but it's better to get a bad quality picture than a good quality nothing. And it's not so bad here. The noise is very well controled on the sky. The ground is grainy but acceptable I think. As mentionned, Some people shoot the foreground with lower iso and then composite the whole thing. - Benh (talk) 11:18, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your interesting explanation Benh. This is indeed why I nominated the image; the noise in the sky is really quite minimal, and although the ground is noisy, it's really not that bad considering the technical issues. The composition and the beauty of the motif make up for unavoidable technical failings to me. Cmao20 (talk) 14:49, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, it would have not been possible to shoot this at a lower ISO unless I wanted to get into aggressive compositing, which in my opinion always leads to unnatural-looking results, even when done skillfully. My noise-mitigation technique relies mainly on using one of the best low-light cameras available. I'm sure one day, with ever-improving tech, we will be able to look back in disbelief at what was considered "acceptable" noise, but for now this is probably approaching the upper bounds of noise management at ISO 6400 (and then some). And while I could have earned another 1.3(?) stops of light by using an f/1.8 lens instead of f/2.8... have ya ever seen the way stars look at f/1.8? Yuck. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:31, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I could have earned another 1.3(?) stops > it's (2.8 / 1.8)^2 = 2.4 more light :) (square because we talk about area), so it's still a tricky question in my opinion :) - Benh (talk)
  • OK for those wondering: 1 stop = 2 times more light = (f number / squareroot(2)). So going from f/4 to f/2.8 = roughly squareroot(2) = two times more light = 1 stop. So going from 2.8 to 1.8 = 2.4 more light = 1.2 stops. Hope I did get it right. - Benh (talk) 17:16, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:18, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Astronomy#Sky
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Bontecou_Lake_Milky_Way_panorama.jpg&oldid=369533370"