Wikimedia Commons

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Savault Chapel Under Milky Way BLS.jpg

< Commons:Featured picture candidates
edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Sep 2015 at 20:55:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

 
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Astronomy
  •   Info all by Benh (talk) 20:55, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support This is one of my favorite own work. I really made some effort to not only get a Milky Way but to put a context under it. It took me a day of scouting to select that place. I also decided to go at a last moment when I knew for sure I had a two nights window to observe the stars. For those interested, shooting stars requires a proper focus which can only be achieved when there's enough light or a large luminous object in the sky like a moon. Or just trust luck. Better to arrive there at sunset, set everything up and to wait for the stars to pop up. The church is light painted. I was on the right side of the frame and lit it with my lamp. Noise can't be avoided. It's really dark, and even with my f/2.0 lens, it get this bright only with a 30 sec exposure and ISO 3200... and a bit of brightening in post processing (one can afford this with ISO invariant sensors). -- Benh (talk) 20:55, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Comment Noise is quite heavy, or software couldn't remove so effectively. I read Fujis have some problems because of specific sensor type which isn't so compatible with post processing software. But I am more bothered by that tree on left, would be better if skiped, or this one cropped. Its better than astro photo from few days ago, but for some serious astrophoto you need motor drive for traction. One more remark, since second time day, how come EXIF show f/1 while you mentioned f/2. I get f/0 as manuals, here are some numbers. --Mile (talk) 21:54, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yup it is... I could have gone further in NR, but that would have remove some actual stars, so I chose to go light on it. I've also selectively NRed the chapel a bit stronger although, again, I couldn't go too far at the risk of making it too different. My feeling is this is the best compromise. The noise pattern isn't too distracting IMO, but I'm open to suggestion. And no, I can't use motor drive: the ground would move ;) So for such pictures I'm stuck to 30s max exposure, which is quite a constraint. Fuji sensor use a different sensor pattern which are marketed as being less prone to Moiré. I never found a real benefit of that (as I don't really encounter much Moiré in my shootings) but because it has much more green photosites, it has better sensitivity at high ISO than a typical APS-C sensor. As for RAW demosaicing on Fuji X-trans... they seem to be harder to interpolate than Bayer pattern. Adobe took some time to deliver something usable, but it's still not quite there for me. The best software I've used so far is Dave Coffin's dcraw (free) which probably serve as a reference to many other RAW decoding soft anyway. For some reason, I've found LR to handle noisy Fuji RAW better than the clean ones. Maybe noise help the interpolating algorithms used by Adobe. My lens shows as f/1.0 maybe because I set a manual 12mm lens on my body but it's f/2.0 (it's Samyang's 12mm, which is pretty good). All these boring topics aside ;), I really hope people will take that picture for what it is... and I also think it's far from being the worst on that subject, technically speaking. I invite you to look online, not so many people share this kind of pic full size, and most are as noisy if not more. - Benh (talk) 22:09, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm, I wouldn't I think :) You can propose it as alternative if you really think it's worth it, but I can't get myself to cut the church I was so happy to find and feel it would give a weird composition (I think I would oppose it). I've an identical picture taken when a 25% moon was on the horizon, about to set down, which shows a brighter church, but with a slightly less contrasty sky. Not sure it changes anything, but I'll show you when I get home. - Benh (talk) 12:41, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for suggestion Arion. While I'd agree with you that perspective correction improves things on architectural subjects, I think this picture is more about conveying feelings. Feelings that one looks above him, and feels small in that huge universe. The converging lines are necessary for that in my opinion. Of course, I don't know if this very pic is successful in that. - Benh (talk) 08:42, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • This shows lack of knowledge dear Jebulon. As I've tried to explain, you just can't take this kind of picture without noise as of 2015 (with reasonably priced gear that I'm aware of). It's pitch dark there, and I can't expose more than 30 sec, or I end up with trails in the sky. I'm fine with opposes as long as they are fair. - Benh (talk) 12:03, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be fair, it has crossed my mind that Jebulon's withdrawal might have affected his opinion. But I think I've known him long enough to believe it's a good faith vote. I only dare thinking he might not realize what it involves to catch such a picture (not sure so many people have tried or care about shooting stars), hence my (rough) comment. - Benh (talk) 17:24, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not state of the art :) but I don't think it's too ugly... I don't have a FF body, but my lens opens at f/2.0 making up for a not too bad combo. I also have experimented and know how to shot multi rows milky ways, and I clearly get better per pixel results. But that was just too hard with a light painting I did randomly (took me several attempts to get the right amount). As Colin points out, maybe it can be processed better. I'm not very skilled with LR and PS. - Benh (talk) 17:24, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes I was light painting the church (see my first comment). It's possible to let the moon lit the church as well, as per that version that I mentioned in the milky way thread on my talk page (you can have a look if u r interested in some additional details). It looks more natural but the downside is a less contrasty sky. The above nom is also light painted, but it's better done I think. - Benh (talk) 21:34, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Arion If my memory is good enough, the two current noms were taken with APS-C camera. I believe both cameras' sensor are Sony made, so they certainly have similar (and good) performance, albeit the Fuji is acknowledged to have slightly lower noise than competition because it has more green photosites (it uses a custom layout) which are supposed to be more sensitive. Technically, I think my photo is better by a whisker : my lens is brighter, performs really good at f/2.0 and suffers no coma (on your nom, the stars aren't dot, noticeable in the corners). If you look closely, you'll also see color blotches. Both pictures can probably be improved with more careful processing. I'm working on mine. If you can get in touch with author of ur nom, it would be great to ask if (s)he can do something about it. Don't think (s)he'll go as far as sharing RAW for us to cook :) - Benh (talk) 08:05, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • And of course it's still best to get a full frame camera to shoot the stars :). - Benh (talk) 08:07, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah my first nom with that many questions :D But I'm very glad if this gets attention. I'm sorry, but the size doesn't destroy the image. It's not like I upscaled it or something. It looks bad for pixel peepers but if you leave it full screen on a fairly large monitor, it's quite fine IMO. And that's really how it should be viewed. Because FPC sees a flow of very high quality interiors, we tend to judge things at pixel size view alone, but that's really a bad habit. I see no one looking at a photo with a magnifying glass in a gallery. If you think quality is bad, you're free to downsize it and see the result. If I share a smaller version, it's harder to do the opposite. But after discussing a bit, and seeing how it's receive, I'm looking at it again. I'm experimenting and think I can improve it. Thanks for your review. - Benh (talk) 16:18, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 13 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 21:14, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Astronomy
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Savault_Chapel_Under_Milky_Way_BLS.jpg&oldid=172351580"