Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Orionid milky way venus zodiacal light.jpg

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

SHORT DESCRIPTION

  •  Info created , uploaded and nominated by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 16:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  CommentHere's the image, which is way below 2 mega pixels size and with the quality well below average. I know that most of you would think that Commons would ridicule itself, if the image like this is promoted and posted to the Main page. These of you, who know me long enough, know that my opinion is just the opposite: I think the Commons would ridicule itself, if no image of a meteor appears at the main page. I know that I am in a desperate minority here. That's OK. Before one of you would add FPX template, may I please ask you at least to go to zodiacal light article and read it. It is interesting IMO.
    I'd also like to talk about mitigating circumstances of taking images of meteors. As you understand long exposure is no help here. Meteors flash over the sky and gone in the same moment.So I used the highest ISO possible to capture one. The above image was taken in RAW format, but it is so noisy, that I decided to downsample it. It still shows everything it should show: Milky Way, Venus Zodiacal light and meteor. Some images could only win, if they are downsampled IMO. Here are few images of meteors from APOD to compare:[1];[2].
  •  Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 16:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: much too small and also blurry. Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

After reading zodiacal light ;-). Lycaon (talk) 19:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment May I please ask you,everybody, to tell me if you knew about Zodiacal light before you saw this nomination? Just "yes" or "no". It would be very interesting for me and it will not take lots of your time. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did on your user talk page. --norro 22:23, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Norro.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:37, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support (weak) The sight is simply marvelous and since its the only such image used in the article, I disregard the size. Muhammad 19:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment While I'm thinking about this one, here's another version. --S23678 (talk) 20:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose After a little search on google on meteors and zodiacal lights, and I quiclky found some images: [3], [4], [5], [6]. Although all these images are copyrighted and none would qualify, in my opinion as a FP because they are too small, it's giving me a little idea of an image quality we could expect from astronomical pictures. This picture fails FP in my opinion because of blurry stars, size, overexposed zodiacal light and distracting element in the bottom right corner. It is the best picture on commons about those 2 phenomenons, but it's still below the standard criterias. And yes, I looked at both french and english articles on zodiacal light. --S23678 (talk) 21:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • None of the very nice pictures you refer to illustrates all four features (Venus, Milky Wau, meteor and Zodiacal light) in perspective and together as my image does, but who cares? Stars in my image are not blurry. It calls star trails, you know because the Earth is turning and the shutter was opened for some time, but who cares? The fireballs and meteors at the images you refer to were produced by different, more active meteor showers Perseid and Leonids, but who cares? One cannot see neither Milky Way nor Zodiacal light from the Northern Hemisphere during Leonids, but who cares?Zodiacal light are not overexposed, but who cares? You know there are opposes and opposes. Some are OK and some hurt. That's why I'd better  now before one more of these opposes.Thank you very much, Muhammad. Your support was very, very important for me. Thank you, Norro and Leo Johannes.
  • I will not argue on your statements as we clearly have different POV and it would lead nowhere. But I'll confirm to you that my decision was long thought. Yourself admitted some defaults on your picture. As a voter, I need to take a decision in the end: are the good sides beating the bad sides? And I took a decision based on that question as much as you took a decision when you decided to nominated your picture. Now, you seem to find my comment hard, but how can't I state many arguments to support my choice, since you stated a whole bunch of arguments in favour of your picture in the introduction (only 1 argument from me would have been countered as "not enough" since your picture is a special case)? Finally, when you nominate a picture here, you must accept that people will not have the same opinions than you. You can discuss their choice, especially if some are debatable, but in the end, if my opinions are considered out of the track, the rest of the voters can counter it. If you expect no opposition to some of your pictures, I'm not the one to blame. I'm sorry if my comments hurted you, I have no desire to do so, but I'll keep using my right to vote. --S23678 (talk) 01:16, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
result: withdrawn => not featured. Lycaon (talk) 21:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/Image:Orionid_milky_way_venus_zodiacal_light.jpg&oldid=12334584"