Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Paraiba-Lajedo de Pai Mateus.jpg

File:Paraiba-Lajedo de Pai Mateus.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 May 2019 at 21:16:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Astronomy
Info created and uploaded by DlauriniJr - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 21:16, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 21:16, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question That's quite an impressive shot, but any idea what's with the foreground lighting? ― Gerifalte _Del Sabana 23:48, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @GerifalteDelSabana: Possibly light pollution or golden hour. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 03:38, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's an explanation for the background, not the foreground. --El Grafo (talk) 08:27, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~ Oppose To me it kind of looks like a bunch of pictures merged, maybe that's just me. --BoothSift 23:49, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Boothsift. Not a plausible single-exposure photo, IMO, nor a stitching of similarly-exposed photos. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:04, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above, it's very beautiful but I am not convinced this photo is really possible as a single exposure. I'm also not convinced by the composition, too much foreground for me. Cmao20 (talk) 06:32, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support so what if it's not a single exposure? The foreground lighting looks like flashlight to me... there are some technical issues but I really do like the picture and it's overall impression --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:09, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose @GerifalteDelSabana, Ikan Kekek, and Cmao20: FWIW, It's definitely possible (and commonly done) to get this in a single shot with "light painting" (lots of examples like this on the Nightscape Images Youtube channel, among others). But I still don't like the way it was done in this case; especially the bright spot on the boulder in the upper left corner is distracting and makes no sense to me whatsoever. --El Grafo (talk) 08:27, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Light painting aside, I don't buy that orange post-sunset horizon with such a bright night sky. When the sky is orange from the sunset you can barely see the moon let alone stars. You might see a planet or two, but that's about it. It's a nice photo compilation though. --Cart (talk) 10:06, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
See also Commons:Photography terms#Time of day for a guide to what is normally visible and when. -- Colin (talk) 11:31, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This image is actually possible in one shot. The Milky Way is about -9ev, this would give 31 sec at f/4 with iso2000 (exif) which is exactly what we have (30 sec). Stars aren't trailing because of the short focal length (rule of thumb is 500/focal length = max exposure without trailing -> 500/16=31.25). Reason for my Oppose is it's badly edited. Crisp horizont on the right with obvious Eraser "bites", leftover of a green light, and very bad filling on the far right (horizontal gradient streaks). But, again, this image is possible in a single shot. -- KennyOMG (talk) 14:46, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stars turned orange by the sunset? How is that possible? --Cart (talk) 15:25, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean the orange glow? Not a sunset. First there's a moonrise/-set on the left side lighting up the scene (based on the shadows). Second the orange glow itself could either be atmospheric haze, pollution lit by the Moon and/or light pollution from nearby sources. Probably a combination of all. -- KennyOMG (talk) 15:37, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Still skeptical. If the clock on the camera is right, 17:23, this is taken four minutes after sunset (17:19) at that location according to The Photographer's Ephimeris. Moonrise was at 07:11 and moonset at 19:17. A waxing cresent at 4% doesn't give shadows in the landscape. --Cart (talk) 18:24, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I accept Kenny's explanation for how this could be a single shot. What I don't accept is the unsharpness on the beach, and also the composition is too busy. Daniel Case (talk) 14:55, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This would be OK if it is a composite of 2 pictures taken at exactly the same place. I can imagine taking the rocks with an exposure, and then the sky with another exposure, and then merge them, and that would be acceptable. Regards, Yann (talk) 06:07, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree, but it's a bit more than that. Looking at File:Pedra do Capacete em Cabaceiras.jpg taken on the same night at the same place by another photographer but 25 minutes later, the sky is still orange from the sunset (no light pollution), there is a moon but no stars yet. So I would guess that the nom is a merge of one photo taken at sunset with the setting sun casting shadows, and one photo taken later at night when the stars came out. The author didn't just use the land from one exposure, it includes a bit of orange sky too making it an astronomical hodgepodge. Pretty to look at, but just as inaccurate as all those photos of a big moon with clouds behind it. --Cart (talk) 08:12, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Time and date are the least reliable pieces of information in the exif. It could very well be that the image itself was saved on that date. not that it was taken. Camera might not be set up properly. Regardless there are other telling signs that it's genuine. One is the presence of hotpixels on the rocks: a Nikon D800 will not put that many hotpixels on a single frame taken at any speed below seconds, yet this image is littered with them. The shadows are also too deep on the rocks, very similar to those cast by moonlight. It would also be impossible to get a flashlight effect during any kind of daylight (including sunset). As for the crescent Moon and shadows: you might be surprised to learn but even Venus can cast shadows when the conditions are right; the Moon even at it's faintest is still ~10x brighter. -- KennyOMG (talk) 00:44, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination 😄 ArionEstar 😜 23:35, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Basile Morin (talk) 04:55, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]