Nominated as the most valued image on Commons within the scope: Moons of Jupiter, Jupiter, Full moon - direct comparison of full moon disk, Jupiter's disk and orbits of all Galileian moons with a resolution 20 times higher than the naked human eye.
Comment - Unless I'm very much mistaken, you're not allowed to vote for your own nominee at VI. This photo is surely useful, but I must be missing the data explaining what magnification was used, as I know very well that no moons of Jupiter can be seen by the naked eye. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:42, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thank you for the proposal of this high-dynamic range image. The used magnification is not really useful - as you can see in the EXIF data the shot was taken with 264 mm focal length on a Micro Four Thirds image sensor, but it was cropped a little bit. The magnification depends on your screen and the used software magnification factor, and of course there is a huge difference between a smartphone and a cinema projection. However, in order to give you an idea of the apparent sizes (i.e. angular diameters) I have added them to the image description. Indeed it is interesting to notice that the largest moon orbit diameter (of Callisto) is about a third of the diameter of the moon disk. --Bautsch (talk) 20:37, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - My feeling is that the original magnification does matter, and that you can then specify that the photo was cropped a bit and that the magnification the viewer sees also depends on what screen s/he uses. But you also need to link the scope to a relevant Commons category, as Archaeodontosaurus mentioned. Go into edit mode to see how other nominations do that. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:56, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - You've properly linked the scope now, but you haven't given the full scope. You can add more aspects of the scope after the link. I also don't see the information about magnification of the original image. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:21, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
None of the images on the "Valued Image Candidates" site does state its magnification. The photographic magnification is a useless number in this context. You could compute it for the moon disk or for the Jupiter disk, but due to the totally different object distances you will get totally different magnification factors within the same image. Furthermore, I have stated all apparent angular diameters in the image description; or did you mean that this text information should be copied here ? --Bautsch (talk) 12:49, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, I didn't mean it should be copied here. I think you understood my point, which is that the naked eye can't see any of Jupiter's moons, so some degree of magnification is necessary to take this photo. The scope looks good now. This photo is surely useful, as I mentioned before. I'm confused about the magnification issue (why couldn't all the magnifications be mentioned?) and inclined to let someone else make a decision on this nomination. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:33, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your contributions, and sorry that there is a difference between optical magnification and angular magnification. Jupiter is much bigger than our moon, but is is much smaller in the image - hence both have different optical magnifications due to different object distances. To be honest, I did not understand your point, because the angular sizes were already given by the specifications in the image description and the optical magnifications do not really make sense. However, I have stated now that the resolution of the image (in a 100% view a pixel represents 2.6 arcseconds) is about 20 times higher than the resolution of the naked eye, wich resolves about 60 arcseconds. Does this match your request? --Bautsch (talk) 20:56, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
