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

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

File:Mercury transit 2.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 20 Apr 2009 at 21:39:15
Mercury Transit

  •  Oppose I can't judge the technical difficulty (which may be amazing!!!), but the image doesn't "speak" to me at all nor does it seem particularly aesthetically laudable etc.--no visible "wow" factor, and it's about images after all. For all I can see, this could be a wooden marble in bad quality... Thus for me it's to me "to be admired (a lot)," but unfortunately not to be featured. --Ibn Battuta (talk) 01:31, 12 April 2009 (UTC) PS: Is Mercury really not round? It looks a little like someone cut off small slices here and there, but as I'm saying, I can't tell if that's from image processing or simply reality. :o) --Ibn Battuta (talk) 01:34, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I made this animation
for the opposers to whom the original image "doesn't "speak"", just for fun, you know. About the quality, this image was selected to be published on EPOD, the site sponsored by NASA. May I please assure you that they got quite a few images to choose from and they've chosen mine. It was also published in at least one book. This was my last comment about the image and the quality for this nomination. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:50, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment From the FP Guidelines: A bad picture of a very difficult subject is a better picture than a good picture of an ordinary subject. A good picture of a difficult subject is an extraordinary photograph. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 09:26, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could u state the inclusion of it in an outside media through {{Published}}?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 16:14, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your question, Diaa abdelmoneim. I added the template to the image description page.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:47, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I congratulate you (again) on the technical merits. I can just say what I see--and that is that this image to me doesn't even remotely have any "wow" factor. It may still be scientifically incredibly valuable, but alas, I'm not judging that. So it remains to me a very bleak, brown image (with or without some "slices" missing). And whether a picture shows a bleak object on earth or a bleak object in the sky doesn't make any difference for my vote. I'm glad, as always, when people disagree and find inspiration in it. I don't. --Ibn Battuta (talk) 16:38, 12 April 2009 (UTC)"[reply]
PS: Regarding this constantly cited passage of the guidelines: I agree it's a "better picture." Given the technical quality it's even (much) more than that. But is every technically flawless image to be featured? --Ibn Battuta (talk) 16:46, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, and they aren`t. Just picking a random example, and Richard Bartz nominated one a couple of days ago. Both technically flawless, but rejected. I consider this image, however, to have something both of the above lacked: the elusive wow factor. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 12:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, It was not seen from where I lived. Yes, 2012 should be good! Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:51, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comment, Dhatfield. I've always tried, and probably ever will try on the tough subjects. I'd say it is good I still have the persistence to nominate the images of my tough subjects for FP, and here I really could use some strength. :) --Mbz1 (talk) 01:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support This is no doubt an outstanding pic. Would be nice if you would add some info about how this photo got made (equipment, setting,...). Btw: English is not my mother tongue but is "was been used", as it is in the published-template, correct? --AngMoKio (talk) 12:18, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your question,AngMoKio.
I've used Nextar 80 GTL with white light filter and with Canon XT (prime focus). Prime focus simply means that I attached my camera directly to the scope, and the scope became my 900 mm manual lens. One of the hardest part is to find the sun. Why? Just think about this, when you put a white solar filter or any other solar filter for that matter, you could see absolutely nothing, but the Sun. It is understandable, because, if you were able to see something, but the sun, it meant that as soon as you see the sun in the scope, you'll go blind. So I moved my scope around the sky in complete darkness until I saw the sun. Other thing is to focus. There's no such thing as to focus on infinity for the scopes. You have to focus at each object separately. It might sound strange, but it is not so easy to focus on the Sun. I got lucky because there was a relatively big sunspot I was able to focus on. Mercury itself was a little bit too small to make the right focus. After this you just follow the sun around the sky with your scope and taking pictures. I cannot remember what camera settings I used. They did not get recorded with the images because the camera did not recognize the scope as the lens, I guess, but Mercury transit lasted for quite a while. I was able to change the settings until I liked what I've got.This image is not outstanding. Anybody having the right equipment could take it. Yet this image is relatively good quality, if you are to compare to other images of the kind. Yes, "was been used" is overdue, "was used" is enough IMO.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:24, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the info. Considering the fact that a Commons user made it and not a NASA employee, it is really a good shot of a rare event. --AngMoKio (talk) 13:40, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 15 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral =>  featured. --Karel (talk) 15:16, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Mercury_transit_2.jpg&oldid=20490326"