Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Aurora australis dancing over an LED illuminated igloo.jpg

File:Aurora australis dancing over an LED illuminated igloo.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jul 2016 at 14:19:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created by Ross Burgener - nominated by Natuur12 -- Natuur12 (talk) 14:19, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Natuur12 (talk) 14:19, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's a fantastic pic, but much too noisy/grainy for my taste. Sorry. w.carter-Talk 14:42, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I noticed the noise which made me slightly hesitate nominating it but than I noticed that some of the other FP's regarding Aurora australis are noisy as well (File:Aurora Australis From ISS.JPG, File:Aurora australis panorama.jpg) Same goes for other images of polar light (File:Polarlicht.jpg, File:Aurora Borealis NO.JPG). Natuur12 (talk) 14:55, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't have any trouble with the sky and the aurora being grainy, those are awful tricky to shoot and hey "it's full of stars". I'm more bothered by the snow. It's so grainy that it's visible at a normal 800X530 px view which is a shame because it is such gorgeous pic otherwise. w.carter-Talk 17:39, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support It's a bit tilted and I'm a bit skeptical about the Igloo lighting, but it's a beautiful photo with both northern lights and a galactic center milky way! My position hasn't changed for noise: shouldn't be a reason to oppose unless it's really terrible. Shooting this is a bit more demanding that any other daylight landscape. - Benh (talk) 16:45, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support INeverCry 16:55, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It looks fine at full-page size but it's really noisy at full size. I don't feel I can support this picture but haven't decided whether to oppose and will probably be neutral. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:13, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful oppose It's a striking image and I could forgive the noisy background due to the long exposure, but the igloo should have been sharper. Daniel Case (talk) 20:39, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per W.carter. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:59, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting idea. The noise level is acceptable for such a picture. --Code (talk) 05:26, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @All: it is possible to take more acceptable noise level images, sample: . --Alchemist-hp (talk) 06:42, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - As for me, NR is too strong on your picture, and I'd rather leave it like on this condidate. - Benh (talk) 08:40, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - "My" image is an original JPG direct from my camera. Is isn' reworked from the RAW-file. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 09:00, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - My point still stands, wether NR was applied in camera or afterwards. - Benh (talk) 10:56, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per ~~Jimmy~~ W.carter. Too noisy. Sorry.--Jebulon (talk) 14:58, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem... that's ~~Jane~~ W.carter, Monsieur.

w.carter-Talk 17:05, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Mö1997 (Questions ?!?!) 21:13, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:56, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Unique. ~★ nmaia ^{[[mia diskuto]]} 15:04, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 15:33, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I’d prefer a less grainy version but the amount of wow on my side still makes up for that. --Kreuz schnabel 08:37, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 20:56, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:32, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Natural phenomena