Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Super moon over City of London from Tate Modern 2018-01-31 6.jpg

File:Super moon over City of London from Tate Modern 2018-01-31 6.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Feb 2018 at 19:38:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Super moon over City of London from Tate Modern 2018-01-31 6.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Super moon over City of London from Tate Modern 2018-01-31 6.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Astronomy#Natural satellites
•  Info As requested, this is the supermoon playing peekaboo with the Walkie-Talkie. I like to think that somone one that floor is looking out their window at an enormous moon. All by me. -- Colin (talk) 19:38, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
•  Support -- Colin (talk) 19:38, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
•  Support Ah!! Yes, yes, yes! Reason given in a previous nom. This can be seen two ways: Like the moon is playing peekaboo with the population in some kind of crazy Duckburg city, OR "there is something super big breaking the surface and coming up behind you!". Btw, I was surprised to find that the Moon doesn't have its own FP category like the Sun has. "Natural satellites"... tsk, tsk, mumble, mumble... --cart-Talk 19:50, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
•  Support --XRay ^talk 21:05, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
•  Support --Basotxerri (talk) 21:13, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
•  Support per cart. Daniel Case (talk) 00:59, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
•  Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:42, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
•  Support --Stepro (talk) 01:44, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
•  Support - I find this composition much more interesting than the other picture. I love how the Walkie-Talkie continues to get wider as it goes up; excellent crop, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:55, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
•  Support Brilliant. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:51, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
•  Support Very creative. Wow there is. --A.Savin 07:16, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
•  Support peekaboo! :) --Peulle (talk) 07:20, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
•  Support --Code (talk) 07:35, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
•  Support --Ermell (talk) 08:51, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
•  Support Great wow factor. But wait - hasn't the moon to appear in front of the clouds according to Peter Lik? ;-) --Granada (talk) 08:54, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
•  Support --Cayambe (talk) 08:57, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
•  Support -- Llez (talk) 09:00, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
•  Support of course! —Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:13, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
•  Neutral This doesn't work with the moon this small. I guess 600mm would be the lowest I try to shoot this with. - Benh (talk) 10:45, 10 February 2018 (UTC) - Benh (talk) 10:45, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I realised, as soon as I reached the viewing area on top of the Tate Modern, that I was way too close to the buildings to make much use of the 500mm, and the security guards were absolutely not letting me get my tripod out. -- Colin (talk) 14:19, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
    • @Colin: I'm afraid that wouldn't have changed anything if you've remained on same spot. You'd have only gained resolution. - Benh (talk) 17:15, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
      • OK to be more specific: you'd have gotten a crop of this, but with more resolution. - Benh (talk) 17:16, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
        • Benh, yes, that's what's I meant by the first half of the sentence. The limited scope to move about, compared to being on the bank of the Thames, also meant I couldn't change the viewing angle. However, I'm happy to have got some shots of the city & moon, and people seem to like this fairly-large moon image. The enormous moon photos are fun, and certainly something to try, but also not very realistic and I do wonder if any are sharp/detailed enough to please FPC. -- Colin (talk) 17:27, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
          • If it doesn't please FPC, it would mean it's different, original and... fun :) and am very curious if you could get such a shot. I think it is no less realistic that any shot here. Just a different, non boring point of view that you get by cleverly choosing ur shooting point and time. And for some reason, when the moon rises (or sets) near the horizon, it looks quite big to me. So that would catch that feeling just about right I think. - Benh (talk) 19:26, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
            • Benh, you are referring to the Moon illusion. But even then, a 500mm lens on my camera is 750mm full-frame and like the page I linked produces scenes no eye can quite realise, which is why I say it isn't realistic, but in the same way as an extreme macro of a fly isn't realistic -- one can't see such scenes. -- Colin (talk) 20:00, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
•  Oppose Stunning but not perfect. The moon as an impotant element of this image seems to be overexposed. It´wouldn't be so difficult to paste a moon with a better exposure time. I don´t share the hype about the "supermoon" --Milseburg (talk) 11:27, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

• "Paste a moon"? After this? If we suggest such things we're no better than Peter Lik. Exposure bracketing is one thing and it doesn't work here since the moon is moving too fast, but pasting sounds a bit too rich for me in a photo like this. --cart-Talk 11:34, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

If there are several elements in an image requiring a different exposure for a natural impression, it is not fake to compose these elements in a differentiated way. I´m sure that pure eyes got another impression here then presented. --Milseburg (talk) 11:51, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

• Milseburg, the moon wasn't over-exposed wrt brightness -- there was plenty headroom in the raw file and no clipping. A shorter exposure might be marginally sharper because the moon is moving and the atmosphere this close to the ground makes it especially wobbly. I have another with half the exposure time (though twice the iso) that is not sharper. You aren't really going to get a sharp image of the moon this close to the horizon and any moon you see that is sharp and near the horizon is a fake. Peter Lik's stupid image not only has clouds impossibly behind the moon, but has the moon super sharp and crisp -- something that can only be achieved on the clearest day with the moon high and by merging many dozens of frames and applying special sharpening techniques. And then of course upper-sky moon is the wrong colour and the wrong brightness for low-sky. The moon is the brightest element in this scene and I wanted to retain that, to have it glow on your monitor rather than looking like someone had stuck on a circular piece of paper. When one photographs the moon higher in the black sky, like File:Moon 2017-02-17 UK.jpg, one can arrange for it to be any brightness you like, though that is far less bright than it was to the eye. The moon close to the ground, in the blue hour, can be photographed with one exposure quite satisfactorily and realistically. Once it gets higher up, it is as bright as the daylight on sand, and that's when one has to play tricks like pasting in another exposure if you need to preserve the exposure on a dark land. -- Colin (talk) 14:19, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

• I don´t think that your moon is blown out, but i´ts too bright in my eyes. Structures on the lunar surface such as the lunar mare are slightly outshone and less recognizable than I know from observations with own eyes. This image some supermoons before over another capital city is showing the moon more detailed and naturaly, without beeing a fake. --Milseburg (talk) 11:15, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

•  Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 16:59, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
•  Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:32, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
•  Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:50, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
•  Support Albertus teolog (talk) 14:56, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
•  Support --Yann (talk) 03:39, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
•  Support I liked it as soon as I saw it in Flickr. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 17:46, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
•  Support Picture of the Year candidate. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 05:12, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
•  Support --Pugilist (talk) 11:34, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
•  Support − Meiræ 01:45, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
•  Support — Rhododendrites ^talk |  15:12, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 27 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 00:31, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Astronomy#Natural satellites