Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Mercury transit 2.jpg

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

Image:Mercury transit 2.jpg - not promoted

[edit]

The transit of Mercury

  •  Info created , uploaded and nominated by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 20:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- Mbz1 20:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Most impressive image. --MichaelMaggs 05:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Amazing image, excellent work. Could you please give us some details on the lens used as well as the body, aperture and shutter speed? Thanks, --Freedom to share 06:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your question, Freedom to share. I used Canon XTI, which was mounted at 3.1 inches telescope. There are three ways of astrophotography: first is afocal, which means one takes image of the object focusing one's camera at the object as it is seen in an eyepiece of the scope;second is eyepiece projection, which means one takes off the camera lens and mounts the camera at the scope, which has an eyepiece installed;third is prime focus, which means one takes off camera lens and mounts a camera at the scope, that has no eyepiece installed. In that case the scope works simply as a zoom lens. For the first way of astrophotography any camera might be used; the latest two require the use of SLR. I've used prime focus. My scope's focal length is 900 mm, so it is like 900 mm zoom lens. The focus of course is manual. It might be interesting to know that it is very hard to focus. I was lucky because I had a very big sunspot to focus on. I used 1/500 exposure with F8.Of course for taking pictures of the sun one should use a filter. When one puts a filter at the scope, one cannot see anything, but the sun. If one could see something else, but the sun, it means that one's filter is demaged and one would probably go blind as soon as one looks at the Sun. That's why it might be tricky to find the sun. Imagine you're moving your scope around the blue sky, but the only thing you could see is black nothingnss and then suddenly you see the sun and it is exiting!--Mbz1 13:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Very nice job. --Manco Capac 06:25, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Sorry, I don't see anything impressive. Maybe some experts who are related to that kind of subject think it's excellent work. For me, it's an egg from bottom with some black spots and even fullscale does not reveal anything compared to the thumb. I believe, this is Mercury transit, but a photo having nearly no composition, colour, dynamics and emotion is not suitable for FP. --Taraxacum 11:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Aqwis 14:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Question/ Comment Why nominating this version and not number 1, or even the animated gif (on which an indication of order & time would be an important addition, by the way) ? Another idea would have been to create a composite picture, as in this picture, but in higher definition and quality, thanks to your great work. Vol de nuit 23:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your questions,Vol de nuit. I do not think I could repeat this picture with my background (the Sun) simply because I cannot make it 100% accurate. The same applies to gif. I created the animation just to illustrate how it looked, but I cannot claim that my animation is accurate. It probably is not. May I please ask you what "number 1" you reffer to? There are few other versions of the same image and I'm not sure what image you meant. I'd also like to mention that your questions are absolutely legitimate and IMO they could be legitimate reasons to oppose the nominated image. Animation might have been better. On the othe hand the only images of the Sun FP has is two images of solar eclipse. IMO it would have been nice to have an image of not eclipsed Sun as FP. Thank you.--Mbz1 00:37, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you mean you do not know the exact time of each picture ? Well, that's quite sad. I still need to think about my vote. For these reasons, and because as I told you previously there are two pictures which look quite similar to me here (1 & 2). In addition, why don't you categorize your picture in Category:Sun too ? By the way, I thought you were right about having no Sun picture as FP, so I just uploaded a few high-definition Sun pictures from SOHO in that category. Maybe one of them could become FP one of these days... Vol de nuit 16:54, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is what I mean. I do not know the exact time of each picture. I took very few pictures. The sun went behind the trees. I have not seen the end of the transit. I was lucky to see it at all. The weathermen promised 80%clouds cover that day. You're right there are few pictures in the category, that are identical to the one, which is nominated. They are the same with only minor edits of colors. I do not think SOHO has a free licence. I've uploaded few images from SOHO myself (the two with big prominences as you did) and they got deleted at the same day. I nominated one at Wikipedia FP. See what happened? I ended up adding my own images to w:solar prominence article. If you look at the history you would see edit by Fir0002 with the summary: "replaced copyrighted image". It was, when, he removed the SOHO images I added. You are right - I'm adding "Sun" category to my image.Thank you.--Mbz1 18:40, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You were right about Soho :( . I guess your picture won't need my vote to become FP. And I hope SOHO pictures will be released in PD soon... Vol de nuit 20:07, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure my picture will need your support. Just wait and see haw many more FP reviewers would complain that the sun looks as "egg from bottom with some black spots and does not show any emotions" ( I wish I knew what "bottom", or maybe I wish not) :-)In any case I'd like to thank you for your comments and suggestions. --Mbz1 20:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Thanks for the link. However there also appears to be some posterization, you know why ? However still I think this is a very valuable and good image so I'll support it. /Daniel78 21:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Part of this might be because the brightness of the sun is not even. This phenomena is known as w:limb darkening. Most of it however is due to the image not being perfectly taken and not being perfectly post-processed. The questions you're asking are very good ones and the problems you point out to might be legitimate reasons to oppose the image. Still IMO this image is very valuabale because it not only shows the Sun and sunspots, but also Mercury, which gives the readers ability to compare the size of the sun with the size of a small planet. It might be hard to comrehend that the mass of the Sun is 99.98% of the Solar System's mass. Everything else: Planets, Moons, Asteroids, Comets are only 0.02%. That's why IMO the image with all its imperfection could be concidered to get FP status. BTW the image was selected from few dozen images, which were submitted, and published at NASA site Earth Science Picture of the Day . Thank you.--Mbz1 00:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 I withdraw my nomination 

Withdrawn >> not promoted -- Alvesgaspar 22:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/Image:Mercury_transit_2.jpg&oldid=11535638"