Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Blood moon over Brastad old cemetery.jpg

File:Blood moon over Brastad old cemetery.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Aug 2018 at 22:33:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Astronomy#Sky
Info created by W.carter - uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by W.carter. This file was harvested from my Flickr account before I had time to upload it on Commons, hence the unusual file history and the bumpy start, now taken care of. I know that my camera isn't good enough to capture astronomical events on a NASA-level, so instead I went for framing. Going to the old cemetery, I was thinking of getting the eclipse framed by gravestones, but clouds and angle prevented this. I had to do with a gnarled tree instead (the thing down right is the top of a gravestone). Since most other photos of the eclipse are taken further south, this is one of the few with the sky still blue, the way it is on bright summer nights here in the north. I think this and the framing makes it worth a try here. -- Cart (talk) 22:33, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cart (talk) 22:33, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful oppose It seems that you've put effort quite a lot of effort into this, however, imho, feel that the image does not have enough technical quality: the crescent is too blown, the sky is a bit too bright, and the moon isn't sharp enough. I also don't really like the composition, but I guess that's up to one's personal taste. Sorry. ― Gerifalte _Del Sabana 03:39, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~regretfully~~ An exposure of 8s is too long, I'm afraid. When taking pictures of the moon, I try to keep exposure at 1/50 max (!), allowing high ISO accordingly - as a rule of thumb --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:26, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In hindsight you are right about the time/ISO, that was a fumble. Regarding the bright sky mentioned above and below, not much I can do about it. We are still in the part of the year where we don't really get nights here in the north, only long blue hour. That's what sets this photo apart from most of the rest and made me want to try it here. I did take some photos with shorter time and thought about making some HDR and get the crescent not so bright, but it just looked odd since you still get the glow from the moon in the surrounding sky. --Cart (talk) 08:49, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I too tried to see if I could get an HDR moon photo, with the last supermoon, using bracketed exposures. But the moon moves and the bright frames do indeed get filled with a glow (atmosphere, lens flare?) that doesn't then merge with the darker frames. I couldn't get anything realistic, though perhaps a more experienced lunar photographer would do better than me. -- Colin (talk) 12:15, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support There are technical issues but it is a rare event to get a lunar eclipse occurring in the evening (blue-hour sky) and close to the horizon (so you can include features on the ground in the frame). My hopes of a photo of the blood moon rising over Tower Bridge were dashed by a 100% blanket of cloud. I don't understand the complaint "the sky is too bright": this is Sweden in the summer. Also it isn't realistic to get both the eclipsed and lit crescent in one frame without the crescent blowing -- the lit moon is a very bright object. I'm surprised at the exposure length because the detail in the moon is acceptable for its size and position close to the horizon. The moon lacks detail at this position, because there is so much atmosphere in the way. The nearest similar photo I found on Commons was File:Lunar Eclipse 2018 SG 015 (28804398927).jpg, and there's not really any more detail in that. Most other photos are boring red discs in an anonymous black sky. What I like here is the composition with the trees, the blue sky, the partial eclipse, and that it serves as a good record about what was unusual with this particular eclipse. -- Colin (talk) 08:23, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

gladly Colin's right. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:34, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Dark, dark. My first impression is negative too. There's no much to see on this image, apart from a small point ultraluminous (with blown highlights) in the middle of a night. The trees have no texture and are blurry at full size. The blue sky is evenly spread without shade nor consistance. For the moon, I wonder what HDR would have given here, but that's a detail. I like the square format, only -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:09, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per GerifalteDelSabana, --Fischer.H (talk) 15:05, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Pretty much per Colin. --Podzemnik (talk) 01:40, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Colin. Daniel Case (talk) 04:42, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support, per Colin. --B dash (talk) 16:14, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Σπάρτακος (talk) 19:34, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Σπάρτακος: as much your participation is very welcome here, you are supposed from the guidelines to justify your vote by a comment. See the section Voting, at the top of the main page : "Explain your reasoning, especially when opposing a candidate". So please state your motive -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:33, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing interesting about it for me Basile --Σπάρτακος (talk) 17:43, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Basile Morin (talk) 05:06, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]