Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Tsuchinshan–ATLAS
Voting period ends on 15 Jan 2025 at 16:22:06 (UTC)
.jpg)
- Reason
- Quality lead image of this comet. This is a composite image, in other words the same scene was shot twice (the comet was tracked, and the foreground was not). See image page for details.
- Articles in which this image appears
- C/2023 A3 (Tsuchinshan–ATLAS)
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Space/Looking out
- Creator
- Jim Vajda
- Support as nominator – Bammesk (talk) 16:22, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support – Hamid Hassani (talk) 03:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support –Vulcan❯❯❯Sphere! 15:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Comment — It's a beautiful shot, but up close there's a distracting stencil effect on the trees where the two parts of the image were composited. Moonreach (talk) 16:29, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yeh, that's the tradeoff of merging the two images, one has to draw a mask somewhere. Not a showstopper IMO. Bammesk (talk) 02:03, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- We've traditionally been pretty against composites of this sort, but they've also usually been much more misleading, not stating they were a composite in advance. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 01:16, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yeh I know, composite photos can be misleading and most of the time are unreal. A composite like we have here is for all practical purposes a Double exposure, in other words shooting the same scene twice in a short time span. A double (or multiple) exposure is not considered a composite, people do it all the time, in the past and at present, for example in Focus stacking, in High Dynamic Range photography, etc. We have example FPs both historic and modern here and here. Even This image is a true multiple exposure (soon to be FP). The nom image isn't any different, it could easily have been called a double exposure. The technique is sometimes necessary and has always been accepted as legit. There is nothing deceptive about it. A composite photo in its common sense is a very different type of photo and/or art. The nom image isn't that. Bammesk (talk) 03:50, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Fair. Support Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 07:03, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yeh I know, composite photos can be misleading and most of the time are unreal. A composite like we have here is for all practical purposes a Double exposure, in other words shooting the same scene twice in a short time span. A double (or multiple) exposure is not considered a composite, people do it all the time, in the past and at present, for example in Focus stacking, in High Dynamic Range photography, etc. We have example FPs both historic and modern here and here. Even This image is a true multiple exposure (soon to be FP). The nom image isn't any different, it could easily have been called a double exposure. The technique is sometimes necessary and has always been accepted as legit. There is nothing deceptive about it. A composite photo in its common sense is a very different type of photo and/or art. The nom image isn't that. Bammesk (talk) 03:50, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yeh, that's the tradeoff of merging the two images, one has to draw a mask somewhere. Not a showstopper IMO. Bammesk (talk) 02:03, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
_Mount_Annan_composite_of_6.jpg){kind=link}
- Support ArionStar (talk) 04:15, 10 January 2025 (UTC)