Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Carina Nebula.jpg

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

File:Broad image of the Carina Nebula.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Mar 2013 at 19:06:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Panorama of the Carina Nebula
The new version of this file is not cropped, unlike the one you link to. Colin (talk) 22:58, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support I have now uploaded the full size version saved using Photoshop quality level 11 out of 12, which reduces the filesize from 107MB to 49MB and no perceptible loss of quality. The image is now 116 megapixels, which I think counts as a "wow". Colin (talk) 22:51, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Question Thanks for your effort. Probably you make some explanations how this kind of images are generated because many people (like me) do not really know it. As far as I have understood it, they are generated from large (non-visual) data. The non-visual data are mapped to a visual representation. Who does it? The people on Commons or NASA / ESA? If this file here is somehow special it should be featured, and others delisted. For me it is "just" a visual representation of any object which noone can observe directly. Could also be a visualazation of traffic data obtained from an internet router. Thus I think max. one or two of this kind sholud get FP label - for the quality of the visualization. --Tuxyso (talk) 06:29, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • +1 Tuxyso; I too want to know such things. I'm a poor Astronomer, want to learn new things. I don't want to oppose things I've little knowledge about. Thanks Colin for your efforts. JKadavoor Jee 07:49, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nice effort indeed, but it does not change my mind, sorry.--Jebulon (talk) 09:24, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added a couple of annotations to the image and expanded the notes a bit. This may help add to the EV of the photo. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 10:46, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nice effort, but after further consideration I will not change my vote: At the moment we have 30+ astro images of the same kind featured (look very similiar, IMHO far too many). I see that this one here is somehow special with regard to its size. But the size changes nothing with the fact that this images are generated from huge amount of data with huge telescope no one on Commons can ever effort. No one can reproduce this work or do it better. I miss a unique act of creation which can be done my a single person which is for me the core of and excellent contribution. Taken an illustration or a nice photo there is (at the beginning) a unique creator who has spent a lot of work with it. This act of human creation is unclear for me (despite the circumstantial information on the description page) with this kind of photos, it seems to me that they are somehow computer processed (in a, for us, non verifiable way). Probably we should nonetheless feature the very best of this computer generated (from data) astro images, but not 30+, sorry. --Tuxyso (talk) 19:17, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I generally agree on this issue with Jebulon/Tuxyso. Nasa and Google Art images can fail to arouse any sense of rewarding someone for a great picture. In fact the 2nd place POTY greatly disappointed me: all the technical qualities of a small posterised GIF and taken by a robot. Perhaps my vote on this was an anomaly and am sure I originally thought I was voting on the larger version (which it now is) which I think is impressive. But different things appeal to different folk -- I guess some astronomers are bored with yet another bird or butterfly or stately home. Colin (talk) 20:18, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I wasn't expecting anybody to change their votes. But I don't like seeing Featured Pictures turning into little more than an art gallery. To me, EV is paramount. I will vote positively on a high EV picture of less than optimal quality taken under difficult conditions, while bypassing many beautiful photos of low EV. Incidentally, I notice that quite a number of other people than myself are in the habit of annotating astronomical images in Commons. So I am merely following a fairly widespread tradition. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 02:50, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • People often forget the main purpose of Commons:Featured pictures; it is to showcase our best works to the potential end-users, not to appreciate or reward anybody. It is just like the way and target. Appreciating people will encourage them to make more quality contributions; but that it not the (main) purpose. I don't think these all pictures look alike for the proper end-users. Otherwise it is quite applicable to all (animals, landscapes, sculptures, paintings, etc.). JKadavoor Jee 07:02, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thinking of FP having a "main purpose" isn't helpful IMO. It serves many purposes for the project. I agree that if one's sole purpose is rewarding folk then give them a barnstar. But we are all human. Well, except for Nasa. And Google Art. Colin (talk) 08:30, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Stas1995 (talk) 12:06, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose per Tuxyso .  B.p. 11:12, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 08:40, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Astronomy
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Carina_Nebula.jpg&oldid=181981435"