Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/The Milky Way over Death Vally

The Milky Way over Death Valley edit

Version comparison

Death Valley is a valley in the U.S. state of California, and is the location of the lowest elevation in North America at -282 feet.Located southeast of the Sierra Nevada range in the Great Basin and the Mojave Desert, it comprises much of Death Valley National Park. It runs north-south between the Amargosa Range to the east and the Panamint Range to the west; the Sylvania Mountains and the Owlshead Mountains form its northern and southern boundaries, respectively. It has an area of about 3,000 square miles.

Edit 1: cropped top and bottom, contrast enhanced, set to greyscale.

Reason: Very unusual picture, in that they were able to picture both the valley and the milky way in the same shot. Hight resolution, and interesting.
Articles this image appears in: Death Valley, Night sky, Milky Way
Creator: U.S. National Park Service

Support as nominator — Chris H 16:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. While this is a very impressive artistic panoramic shot, I don't think it contributes to the article significantly. The fact that much of the foreground is very out of focus, it is black and white and contains the milky way sky so prominently only confuses understanding of what Death Valley actually is in my opinion. Good image, just sadly not FP material on Wikipedia. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 16:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ I think the technical problems are minor for a night shot (although some cropping might be in order). Maybe it should also be added to Milky Way? ~ trialsanderrors 20:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that panoramas are rather unwieldy to have in article. It can be done; see Along the River During Qingming Festival; but (IMHO) it is best not to have them included unless it contributes something that could not be done by an image with a more balanced aspect ratio.--Here T oHelp 20:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For the Milky Way article a crop with a better aspect ratio might work. ~ trialsanderrors 21:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdrawn because of multiple stitching errors. ~ trialsanderrors 20:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. Not a support yet, just a general wow. --KFP (talk | contribs) 23:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support For sheezy! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chickitychina`1`1 (talk • contribs) 02:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC). J Are you green? 01:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's a great picture, and although it doesn't contribute much to Death Valley, it would probably be great for Night Sky, Milky Way, and Light Pollution. Does a featured picture have to contribute strongly to an article to be FP anyway? --Keflavich 02:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- My support is for the unedited version --Keflavich 19:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Support I support the original which appears to now be part of Night Sky. I think the panoramic currently in Milky Way does a better job of showing the sky than either version of this, so I say keep this one out of that article. Neither version does much credit to Death Valley as it is written currently. If someone adds a subsection on light pollution or a separate article then the original would be well suited to that. Flendon 01:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Diliff. Yeah, it's striking and very nice... but, I am not even sure it does a great job of representing night sky, Mily Way, or light pollution... and yes, WP:FP? #5 states it need to contribute. I interpret as strongly and find "[w]hile effects such as black and white, sepia, oversaturation, and abnormal angles may be visually pleasing, they often detract from the accurate depiction of the subject" to be especially relevant to this nomination. gren グレン 07:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- How about the factoid that Death Valley has the darkest night sky of all U.S. National Parks [1], and one of the darkest skies in the U.S. proper [2]? I don't think color was chosen for artistical reasons here. ~ trialsanderrors 08:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still on the fence about the original, but I have to oppose the edit, that one is way too dark and in no way representative of the actual view the photographer saw. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What makes you think that? I actually darkened it on second go-around (using curves to avoid blown blacks) because I have grave doubts the night sky was grey. To get anything as light as the original you'd have to have the full moon out. (Just to put numbers on it, the background sky is 98% black in the edit, and 88% black in the original.) ~ trialsanderrors 08:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - You might be right but to be honest I can't see any detail whatsoever in the hills anymore. I'm not using a great display at the moment so I'm not going to make definitive statements but if the hills (and that rock in the foreground) are only a few points from absolute black then almost all detail is going to be lost even if you haven't actually blown them. In any case, the sky had to have some light in it or would not have been grey in the first place and assuming a relatively linear exposure curve with no dodging and burning, the brightness of the sky would be relative to the brightness of the landscape and the heavy clouds which look to come pretty close to absolute black in parts. If the sky is brighter than the dark clouds then I suggest that is because it because it wasn't actually as black as you imagine. It looks like a fine haze of cloud illuminated by the starlight is partly to blame. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - There are two separate things: 1. The desired level of detail, and 2. the accurate replication of the actual lighting situation. On the residual light in the sky, certainly there are particles in the air that reflect the background glow. But given this is one of the remotest areas in California I have grave doubts that background glow and starlight create enough light to make features visible at night that are dark even during the daytime. The picture strikes me as post-processed simply in order to enhance those features, with some other drawbacks (e.g. the poor contrast in the sky and on the valley floor). I'd say that if anything my edit is even too light for the actual lighting situation, but of course if the goal is to bring out the features of the mountains we should go with the original. Although I'm not sure why not go with a daylight shot in that case. ~ trialsanderrors 10:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - You could be right. As I said though, why are the dark clouds darker than the sky if the sky was virtually pitch black? I think starlight does have the ability to illuminate the foreground if exposed long enough, although I'm not sure that is the case here since there is minimal blurring of the stars. I suspect it was taken with a fast, ultra wide lens with a wide open aperture (in the region of f/1.8 to f/2.8). Just a guess though. As for what the goal is, I would have thought it was to show Death Valley, not the sky which is merely an impressive backdrop. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I agree with many comments above, however, To represent death valley the ENC of the picture is fairly minimal. What it represents well however, is the view of the milky way from earth. To this end, the edit is a vast improvement. Astheticaly, one doesn't want to look at a star image with a gray background and light hills and the edit solved that problem. If this Image was only suposed to represent death valley I'd say it wouldn't deserve to pass on ENC alone and so I think the star angle should be the priority. -Fcb981 14:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well the sky is certainly not pitch-black (although I doubt it's diffusion from hazy clouds, that would reduce lightness on the ground). The clouds get no light from the stars or the background glow, so they certainly are the darkest feature in the picture. The sky shows the typical gradation that comes from the background glow, but I have strong doubts the background glow is strong enough to light up the upper reaches of the sky in the picture. It just strikes me as the typical night picture where the grey tab of the levels tool is moved to the left in order to lighten up dark grey areas. ~ trialsanderrors 20:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support The original lighter version does a good job of showing the light pollution (see that eery glow emanating from above the peaks?). It also demonstrates some features of death valley and the playa, such as the barren landscape and cracked earth. !jim 18:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the edit, Conditionally support the original if someone finds a way to fit it into Milky Way. I think it does a better job of illustrating the Milky Way, from an Earthly perspective, than any of the current images in that article, but I share the encyclopedicity concerns brought up by Diliff and others.--ragesoss 20:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Second this comment !jim 21:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support for original, oppose edit. I just saw a NZ TV documentary about Death Valley, which is a haven for astronomers and stargazers because of very little light pollution. The time-lapse sky sequence shown in the documentary was very much like this image. Opposers should re-consider if this fact might change their vote - this is a grand image! --Janke | Talk 17:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support edit 1 On the grounds this get incorporated into Milky Way, because it illustrates the Milky Way far better than Death Valley. The stars are far clearer in edit 1, so I would give my support to that picture. Centy 00:43, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think edit 1 does a better job of showing the milky way, but a cropped version might be nice - as it stands, there is a lot of valley shown and the MW isn't quite the central focus of the image. --Keflavich 18:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support Great picture, really useful on encyclopaedia. Great job! Zouavman Le Zouave _{(Talk to me!)} 18:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very Strong Support The picture was selected as APOD picture. I trust the guys from NASA, who run APOD know the value and the quality of the picture. The picture is in perfect focus and has a big value. Mbz1 | Talk
Strong Support. This image is just stunning. Surely one of the best NASA pictures.--KaragouniS 17:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support (having clicked on the image to get a closer look while viewing Milky Way, not browsing FPC). I think the image could use a little contrast enhancement, but I prefer the original to the edit, which seems too dark to me. — brighterorange (talk) 22:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support; but absolutely prefer the original to the edit. Goodnight mush^Talk 04:08, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Amazing Electricmoose- Electrifying ^talk 18:53, 5 May 2006 16:14, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Electricmoose --St.daniel ^Talk 13:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support original, oppose edit — Like brighterorange, I found this picture through the Milky Way article, and was about to nominate it, but it looked like someone beat me to the punch. ♠ SG →Talk 20:51, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support A really outstanding picture M&NCenarius 08:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A note from the maker of this image. Since it is in the Public Domain, I have no control over subsequent processing. However, the intent of the image was neither to show light pollution nor the Milky Way, per se. It's intent is to reveal the fact that it is still possible to view the visible universe from earth from a place of solitude, beauty, and peace. By the way, the "eerie glow" is NOT light pollution, but the natural airglow (permanent aurora), light pollution is virtually invisible in this image. APOD also made an error in saying it was a mosaic of 30 images, it is actually 60 images stitched together. Stretching on the top makes the stars look like lines, a necessary evil in making panoramas that are rectangular in shape with zero distortion at the horizon. The original image is about 13000 x 4000 pixels, I submitted a downsampled representation in 8 bit monochrome. The original image is 16 bit, with more dynamic range than the human eye can possibly perceive in greyscales. I chose grey because under this level of light the human eye is essentially color blind. I thank the nominator for the honor, and can only flinch at the subsequent image processing.Ngc1972 02:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support for the original version. It is a stunning picture. -- Anirban 06:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Deathvalleysky nps big.jpg MER-C 07:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a footnote please read that light at night from Las Vegas is affecting stunning imagery like this? You can see the video describing the problem at California Connected HERE - http://www.californiaconnected.org/tv/archives/449 Wikipedia has it own pages on light pollution, caused by light at night, HERE - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_pollution —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.155.40.17 (talk) 11:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]