Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Heavens Above Her.jpg

File:Heavens Above Her.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jul 2015 at 08:01:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Heavens Above Her.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Heavens Above Her.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Astronomy
•  Info created by Ian Norman - uploaded and nominated by Benh (talk) 08:01, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
•  Support This picture took my breath away. It has a fantastic mood, beautiful composition, and is a technical achievement (it's a mosaic hence the size, and nothing beats a Sony for low light photography to start with). A big wow in my opinion. Author was kind enough to change its license to a CC-by-SA on request, which I believe is remarkable for such a picture. -- Benh (talk) 08:01, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
•  Support Sure! Yann (talk) 08:38, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
•  Neutral Nice composition,bad quality --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 10:28, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

•  Comment Hi Livio, I can understand you find it noisy. At 12800, it won't be otherwise. But let me try to demonstrate the mitigating reasons. Shooting milky ways isn't as easy as shooting a daylight landscape or a church interior. Spotting one is hard enough, and when you see one, you realise it's pretty faint in the sky (though definitely noticeable). If I use setting like ISO 100 and even with large aperture such as f/2.0, it would take me a few minutes to get something this bright. But earth rotates, and I'd end up with trails. I think advanced astronomers use motors so their cameras follow the earth rotation ; but if you do so, landscape moves and you can't get the beautiful composition as on this candidate. Shooting milky ways requires short exposure times. Getting something this large shortens them even further (because it takes shorter to "move over more than a pixel"). Even if I'm not clear in my explanations, this picture is still 60 megapixels (!), leaves room for downscaling, and probably renders as good as many FP when printed at the same size. In short : this picture is close to state of the art from a technical point of view, when it comes to shooting milky ways. I bet it's hard to find a better one quality wise, (and especially under such a license). - Benh (talk) 12:42, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

•  weak support Ok Benh you convinced me, more than anything convinced me that the resolution is actually great. I with my telescope use a motor drive but probably the figure of the girl don't would be clear, however ok.--LivioAndronico ^(talk) 13:12, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

• Glad I did ;) the point really is that we can't do much better than this on this kind of topic, technically speaking, so it shouldn't be a reason for oppose IMO (maybe with some clever stacking to reduce noise and even more clever stitching... but that would become insane). Of course, anyone is free to dislike milky ways, composition, the light pollution etc. - Benh (talk) 14:44, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

• I do not think the composition is excellent --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 15:02, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

•  weak support per Livio. --Tremonist (talk) 15:26, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
•  Support Great as long as you don't look at it at full size. But I see the mitigation reasons as pointed out by Benh. --Code (talk) 15:56, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
•  Support Great idea! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:47, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
•  Support Unbelievable shot. --Laitche (talk) 21:55, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
•  Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:47, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
•  Support --El Grafo (talk) 07:27, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
•  Support I dont care the quality because the composition is simply overwhelming. --The Photographer (talk) 09:32, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
•  Support per The Photographer and Benh --Llez (talk) 16:03, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
•  Support Superb. --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 16:16, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
•  Support Per others. Daniel Case (talk) 03:29, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
•  Support This is where pixel peeping ends... Great! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:53, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

• So true. My records don't speak for me, and I still like a good sharp picture, but I've also come to despise pixel peeping... - Benh (talk) 06:55, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

•  Support --Σπάρτακος (talk) 16:04, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
•  Support --Schnobby (talk) 15:31, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 15:01, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Astronomy