Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Lunar eclipse time lapse still image

Time Lapse series of Lunar Eclipse edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Aug 2011 at 21:38:56 (UTC)

Original - Time-lapse series of photos of a rising moon during the October 2004 lunar eclipse as seen from Northern California.

Reason: meets all FPC criteria, additionally shows the progression of the moon thru the sky and the progression of a lunar eclipse above a picturesque landscape.
Articles in which this image appears: Lunar eclipse
FP category for this image: Space
Creator: Mactographer

~~* Support as nominator~~ --TimL (talk) 21:38, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination. Based on feedback here I think it is safe to assume that the image is confusing because of the overexposed still, which looks like the sun to the average user. Also based on this feedback it no longer has an associated article. I'll try to find a home for it somewhere though (portrait pictures though, take up a lot of space and this one needs to be fairly big to show any detail without having the user click through). I can't put it in the gallery because it is a portrait. --TimL (talk) 23:34, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The captioning just gives place and time, but no explanation of what is going on (this is a photo serving as a technical diagram). Article doesn't help much either. I'm sure I could spend time, research it, and nuke it out. But the point of an illustration is to help make that easy...to give me info fast. what's with the bright light? is this an eclipse of sun or moon? TCO (reviews needed) 21:57, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After nominating it, it occurred to me the picture was the hook of the wrong article. It is now the hook of Lunar eclipse. That may disqualify it since pictures are supposed to be on a page for a week. As to your questions, the caption states quite clearly it's a lunar eclipse. The 2nd time lapse photo may have had an exposure error, but I don't believe that detracts much from the overall image. --TimL (talk) 22:18, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The 1 week rule is meant to keep people from adding an image to article simply to have it meet the "is used in one or more articles" criterion, not to prevent people moving the image to a more appropriate article. It's phrased more as a guideline anyway.--RDBury (talk) 07:44, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tweaked caption based on your feedback. --TimL (talk) 22:44, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think a more helpful caption would call attention to and explain the change in darkness on the moon's face. Realize eclipes are geometrically complicated. This is a photo that should serve mcuh as an explanatory diagram, not just a "pretty picture of the event". Also, the bright moon overexposure should probably disqualify the image, just as a fault in general...but also because it totally looks like the sun and makes it confusing to know if this is lunar or solar eclipse (and recall the geometry is already a little confusing, so no need to add more confusion from a fault...the image should be teaching us how the lunar eclipse works). If we had the same sequence, sans the "sun" and had a caption that said something like "time lapse over one hour [or whatever the time was] shows darkening and then lightening of the moon during a lunar eclipse. Partial illumination is a result of [earthshine or whatever] that would get my vote for FP, no problem. TCO (reviews needed) 12:12, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm a bit confused by this image. This was taken of the moon during a lunar eclipse, so the sun should be behind the camera, yet the sun is clearly visible at the beginning of the series. It would be nice to have some information about how far apart the exposures were, when they began and ended, etc. Also, the image width is less than the 1000 pixels required in the FPC criteria. This image was nominated before and was not promoted, not sure what would have changed since then to make a difference. It is a striking picture though and does help illustrate the different phases of an eclipse.--RDBury (talk) 08:07, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the prior nomination not on the discussion page? I never would have wasted my time. Anyways the sun is nowhere to be seen. There is unfortunately one overexposed still. What you see is an overexposed moon, not the sun. Also the FPC criteria states "Still images should be a minimum of 1000 pixels in width or height" (emphasis mine). Not both. Thanks. --TimL (talk) 10:08, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see now, it certainly looks like the sun though. The criterion seems ambiguously worded to me, maybe it should read "either the width or the height should be at least 1000 pixels." I found the other nom in the File links section, otherwise it looks like non-promotions aren't indicated.--RDBury (talk) 15:48, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose because of that overexposed still. In an illustration of this subject, that overexposure is a big problem IMO. Pine _{(was GreenPine)} ^talk 03:02, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's true. If people think it's the sun that's no good. I can see why it is there now. It was at the point and time when the background that you see looked best in the photographers eyes, but to capture it he had to use an exposure which was fine for the background, but which completely overexposed the moon. Interestingly, if one were to attempt a similar photo, I think they would be faced with the same problem. Do you think a note in the caption like "2nd frame is overexposed to capture the background" would help? --TimL (talk) 11:14, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so, because this is an illustration of a scientific concept. I think this image fails its primary objective. It might be a good photo for someone's desktop image but that won't make it worthy of FP, IMO. I would prefer a bad background to a bad primary subject, similar to my comments on on other FP nominations about focus issues. Pine _{(was GreenPine)} ^talk 05:03, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This image has been nominated before (previous nomination). The reason it was not promoted before is that an old version of the photo had a copyright watermark. At least that's what a good portion of the Opposes were based on. -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 20:49, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the link. Clarification: the opposition wasn't because of a copyright problem, but because the copyright was advertised on the image. Pine _{(was GreenPine)} ^talk 02:59, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think this is a great image (assuming it is what is says it is), but it only meets the bare minimum resolution requirement, and it’s been removed from the page (Lunar eclipse) that it’s supposed to feature on. TehGrauniad (talk) 23:39, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment by the photographer I just found out about this nomination. No it's not the sun, just an over exposed moon. After a shaky start, the photos were taken 5 minutes apart. Let me break down the description for those who are confused. "Lunar eclipse time lapse composite photo taken over Hayward, California." That simply means, this photo is a lunar eclipse time lapse composite photo taken over Hayward, California. More explanation needed? Okay, Lunar means moon. Eclipse is what happens when the earth gets in the way of the sun and casts a shadow on the moon. Time Lapse is what happens when you take many photos over a period of time. Composite is what happens when you composite all the time lapsed photos into ONE photo. Taken over Hayward, California means I took the photos over Hayward, California. Did that help any? --Mactographer (talk) 07:48, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. You failed to address the problem of the overexposed still, which looks like the sun to a lot of people and cause cognitive dissonance or confusion. And your condescending reply is not gong to bring the nom back from the grave. --TimL (talk) 11:01, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What part of "No it's not the sun, just an over exposed moon" didn't explain the overexposed still? And pardon my "condescending reply", but it was mostly in reply to the condescending comments of others making uneducated judgments, guesses and pronouncements about an image I didn't put up for a critique. It's like some @sshole volunteering his opinion that you are fat when you weren't asking for his opinion in the first place. Next time, try asking the photographer's permission before putting up his photo for public ridicule and scrutiny. --Mactographer (talk) 07:43, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it overexposed? And no next time I will not ask, that is not part of the process. Anyone may nominate any picture. Everything you put on Wikipedia is "up for public ridicule and scrutiny" including your own comments. if you can't handle that, what are you even doing on Wikipedia? --TimL (talk) 11:26, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Timmy, if publicly ridiculing someone who didn't ask for the attention floats your boat, then by all means, keep up the good work. I'd call you a c-cksucker, but I hear you are trying to quit. Where I come from those kinda jerks were called cowards and bullies, and usually couldn't find any girlfriends. But maybe NOW you know why I don't do much here anymore ... cuz of dolts like you and other self appointed "experts" who think they have ANY idea how to judge the merits (scientific and/or aesthetic) of someone else's work. Oh, and by the way, this same image was found on another spot on the net and was subsequently used by an academy professor teaching survival skills to military students and he found it quite "scientifically" useful to help train his students to triangulate their earth position by the azimuth of the moon. And, oddly enough, he had NO problem with the overexposed still. In fact, somehow, he actually figured out all on his own, without ANY help from his mommy or anyone else that it was just an over exposed moon. But that guy was ONLY a trained expert who trains OTHER experts ... I'm sure you and the other kibitzers here know a whole lot more than he does. So take a few more pot shots if you like, since it thrills you, but I'm finished here. --Mactographer (talk) 08:31, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The caption should mention how long the sequence took. Also, should specifically mention darkening of the moon (took me a sec to realize that). This pic will be used to help illustrate an article for people who don't know what a lunar eclipse is already, but want to learn. Also the "sun" completely ruins it as a clarifying diagram.TCO (reviews needed) 14:41, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --TimL (talk) 19:42, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]