Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/The Blue Marble (Remastered)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 Feb 2022 at 15:43:10 (UTC)
.jpg)
- Reason
- Properly color-calibrated version of widely known NASA photo AS17-148-22727 (a.k.a., The Blue Marble). Scanned by Johnson Space Center/Arizona State University.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Earth, Planet, Ecology
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Space/Looking back
- Creator
- The Apollo 17 Crew/NASA JSC/ASU, restored by Aaron1a12
- Support as nominator – Aaron1a12 (talk) 15:43, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
- If this nom passes, we should delist This FP. Bammesk (talk) 16:57, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
- Should we? I think sometimes iconic photos can be ruined by changing them for accuracy. In this case, it was colour corrected fifty years later based on a different photograph in different lighting. I'm not entirely sure of the methodolog, given we have to ask how much any photo can exactly reflect the human eye. There's no one right answer as to exposure. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.6% of all FPs 17:14, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
- Nonetheless, digital white-balancing is considerably more accurate nowadays than the chemical processing from the 1970s. NASA themselves have released various chromatically-altered versions through out the years (https://www.nasa.gov/image-feature/the-blue-marble-the-view-from-apollo-17) and yet we stick by the purple version. Aaron1a12 (talk) 17:38, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
- Aaron1a12, the flickr source here gives a ~ 2500 x 2500 pixel image after cropping, not 3000x3000 pixels? Bammesk (talk) 22:02, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
- The source is primarily from a JSC/ASU scan, not flickr. It's actually higher-res than the flickr source. Aaron1a12 (talk) 00:59, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- Aaron1a12, the flickr source here gives a ~ 2500 x 2500 pixel image after cropping, not 3000x3000 pixels? Bammesk (talk) 22:02, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
- Nonetheless, digital white-balancing is considerably more accurate nowadays than the chemical processing from the 1970s. NASA themselves have released various chromatically-altered versions through out the years (https://www.nasa.gov/image-feature/the-blue-marble-the-view-from-apollo-17) and yet we stick by the purple version. Aaron1a12 (talk) 17:38, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
- Should we? I think sometimes iconic photos can be ruined by changing them for accuracy. In this case, it was colour corrected fifty years later based on a different photograph in different lighting. I'm not entirely sure of the methodolog, given we have to ask how much any photo can exactly reflect the human eye. There's no one right answer as to exposure. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.6% of all FPs 17:14, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
- Comment – FWIW the film frames are at this link. The nominated frame/capture AS17-148-22727 is here. Two frames earlier is the AS17-148-22725 here and it's different. The end frame of the '148' magazine (presumably the color calibration) is here. For comparison, we have this. Bammesk (talk) 20:07, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
- The large resolution .PNGs are already color-processed by ASU and are, in fact, copyrighted by the university. The copyright-free 1.2 GB raw file is where you want to start if you want to color-calibrate it yourself. The original pic is quite dark and how you interpret the gamma will greatly affect the look when correcting exposure.
BTW: nice photo from the ISS Cupola you got there! The blues in the ocean look remarkably similar to the blues in this photo. Aaron1a12 (talk) 00:59, 14 February 2022 (UTC)- Nom image has better colors than this older version, but it looks overexposed (by about half a stop i.e. 0.5EV) (just the midtones, not the highlights). I support if it's adjusted. About the comparison-image, I think it's background is overexposed too (overexposure of bright spots is common in high dynamic range photos). Bammesk (talk) 03:19, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- I've lowered the EV slightly now (your browser cache might take time to update). Histogram's looking good. Aaron1a12 (talk) 23:28, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support – Bammesk (talk) 01:21, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- I've lowered the EV slightly now (your browser cache might take time to update). Histogram's looking good. Aaron1a12 (talk) 23:28, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- Nom image has better colors than this older version, but it looks overexposed (by about half a stop i.e. 0.5EV) (just the midtones, not the highlights). I support if it's adjusted. About the comparison-image, I think it's background is overexposed too (overexposure of bright spots is common in high dynamic range photos). Bammesk (talk) 03:19, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- The large resolution .PNGs are already color-processed by ASU and are, in fact, copyrighted by the university. The copyright-free 1.2 GB raw file is where you want to start if you want to color-calibrate it yourself. The original pic is quite dark and how you interpret the gamma will greatly affect the look when correcting exposure.
Not Promoted --Armbrust The Homunculus 18:22, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
- Nomination didn’t reach the necessary quorum for promotion. Armbrust The Homunculus 18:22, 23 February 2022 (UTC)