Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Good Morning From the International Space Station.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Aug 2015 at 18:37:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Satellite images
- Info created by Scott Kelly - uploaded & nominated by Originalwana (talk) 18:37, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
- Support As nominator Originalwana (talk) 18:37, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
- Support I can already see the bad quality and noisy opposes... but if I get it right, this picture features visible atmosphere layer, night lights, storms and a sunrise... I think it's quite incredible. - Benh (talk) 21:22, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
- Attention, l'arrogance te guette...--Jebulon (talk) 21:37, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
- Ah bon... Je dirais quand même plutôt la lassitude. Fatigué de voir des images comme celle de dessus passer (plus entre les mailles du filet qu'autre chose) et des choses comme celle là bloquer pour des détails. - Benh (talk) 21:44, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
- Celle du dessus ne passera pas... Et tu sais bien aussi parfois fustiger les détails, toi-même. N'oublie pas la part de subjectivité que chacun est libre d'exprimer, comme tu le fais pour le cycliste de Hué...--Jebulon (talk) 21:35, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
- Pour le cycliste, ça n'est pas un détail, c'est tout le concept même de l'image qui ne me revient pas. Les détails c'est plutôt là. c'est un peu flou sur les côtés, mais l'image fait 30mpix (sans mentionner la beauté du lieu, la lumière... le truc qui fait que ça sort de l'ordinaire). Par contre quand on abuse sur la balance des blancs ou sur la réduction du bruit, ou qu'on a de grosse erreurs de collage, qu'on a oublié l'espace de couleur, il y a moins de monde. On a un peu tendance à ne regarder que la netteté, et on trouve plus facilement des raisons contre que des raisons pour. Et c'est bien ce qui me fait peur ici. - Benh (talk) 05:07, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
- Mais oui pour le subjectivité, au fait. Je n'ai pas dit le contraire, et ça n'est pas tout à fait le propos. - Benh (talk) 05:27, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
- "le cycliste" n'est pas dans la phrase du "détail". Il est dans celle de la "subjectivité".--Jebulon (talk) 21:33, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
- Celle du dessus ne passera pas... Et tu sais bien aussi parfois fustiger les détails, toi-même. N'oublie pas la part de subjectivité que chacun est libre d'exprimer, comme tu le fais pour le cycliste de Hué...--Jebulon (talk) 21:35, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
- Ah bon... Je dirais quand même plutôt la lassitude. Fatigué de voir des images comme celle de dessus passer (plus entre les mailles du filet qu'autre chose) et des choses comme celle là bloquer pour des détails. - Benh (talk) 21:44, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
- Attention, l'arrogance te guette...--Jebulon (talk) 21:37, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
- Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:59, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
- Support. Agree with Benh, what it shows outweighs the technical faults, and looking at the camera settings used, there's absolutely nothing that could be done about it - the photographer was pushing up against every exposure limit imaginable to achieve this shot. The motion blur is simply the movement of the ISS in orbit, and it was not possible to reduce the shutter speed or increase the ISO or widen the aperture. As such, I'd be more than happy to make an exception and excuse the blur and the noise. Diliff (talk) 01:38, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
- Support per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:09, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
- Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:32, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
- Support Per Diliff. Love the way the upper atmosphere makes Earth seem like a fragile soap bubble. Daniel Case (talk) 16:16, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose I'm sorry but for me it's just a bunch of blurry lights.Anyway very pretty in thumb --LivioAndronico (talk) 19:32, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
- Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:50, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
- Comment I changed the FP Category to Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Satellite images. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 20:27, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
- Comment This image does not featuring a sunrise but a moonrise. It is impossible to see stars and the sun at the same time with the naked eye as well as with photographic illustration. See here at paragraph 4, the difference from the bright sunlight to the faint starlight is too big. This photo has an exposure time of a half second with direct view to the allegedly sun, those photo would be completely overexposed. You can observe the other photos of the category Sunrises from orbit for real sunrises, an other example for a similar moon photo is here. --Ras67 (talk) 21:18, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
- I think you're right actually, it's more likely a moonrise. But I disagree that it's completely impossible to see stars and the sun at the same time in a photo. It's just difficult. Obviously the sun will considerably drown out anything nearby it and the lens elements will reflect the sunlight around inside and create mammoth lens flares, but with a long enough exposure and a lens that handles flare well, there's no reason why you couldn't see the stars that are a reasonable distance from the sun. The only reason you can't see stars in the examples you gave is because the exposures are set to expose the scene correctly for the sunrise (a fraction of a second) as opposed to the stars (1 second plus). Diliff (talk) 21:44, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
- Support --Ericsfr (talk) 07:33, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
- Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 13:02, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Satellite images