Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bunker under the Milky Way.jpg

File:Bunker under the Milky Way.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Aug 2016 at 12:18:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Astronomy
Info created by ElBute - uploaded by ElBute - nominated by ElBute -- ElBute (talk) 12:18, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ElBute (talk) 12:18, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 12:35, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 15:27, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:03, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 16:35, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Even as I marked this as QI, I was thinking that the noise level was just about ok for that since it is a night pic. But I can't say I think it's enough for FP since the bunker is obviously lit in some way and therefore it could have been sharper and not so noisy (comparing with this). w.carter-Talk 17:58, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Milky Way pictures are always noisy for you have to raise ISO settings to high values. Otherwise you won't be able to capture it. Check other FP of the Milky Way (here for example, which you know for sure, or here) . Regarding the image you give as an example, please consider it's a much smaller image, obviously reduced in size to conceal the noise. Moreover, no EXIF information is given, which allows me to infer that it's a double exposure (two different shots blended together for it's the only way to reduce noise in the foreground while being able to capture the Milky Way using an exposure time below 30 sec.) --ElBute (talk) 20:11, 9 August 2016 (UTC).[reply]

We can only speculate, but I think you are going to get this one anyway. I'll be the odd one out per usual. ;) Where does the light on the bunker come from anyway? w.carter-Talk 23:13, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Every opinion is valuable to me, even more the "odd ones" ;). Please, keep commenting my photos here and in QI. Regarding the light on the bunker, it comes from a warm flashlight as you indicated. --ElBute (talk) 05:51, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*temp. Oppose Too much "hot"-pixels (fixable). --Alchemist-hp (talk) 18:04, 9 August 2016 (UTC) --Alchemist-hp (talk) 14:53, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It will be fixed tomorrow. --ElBute (talk) 20:11, 9 August 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Great, so I'd like to strike my oppose :-) --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:26, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done Nine hot/red pixels have been fixed so far. Should you find any more, please tell me. Thanks. --ElBute (talk) 05:59, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 12:50, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great example of this type of photo ... minimal noise despite the long exposure. Daniel Case (talk) 18:48, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 20:22, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great wow, acceptable quality for night photography. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:49, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support per other supporters, though if the photo can be improved further, so much the better! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:56, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:44, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:56, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support − Meiræ 23:15, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:44, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Kreuz schnabel 15:04, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Astronomy