Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Curiosity (rover)

Curiousity (rover)
Voting period ends on 22 Feb 2013 at 12:46:56 (UTC)
 * Reason:A self-portrait from a robot... on Mars. Need I say more?
 * Articles in which this image appears:Curiosity (rover) +7
 * FP category for this image:Featured pictures/Space/Understanding
 * Creator:Curiosity (rover) (NASA)


 * Support as nominator -- — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:46, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Support goes for alt too. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:15, 14 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Support --LlamaAl (talk) 00:41, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment -- Should the description page mention any white balance correction? --Chrismiceli (talk) 01:05, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 *  Conditional support if a minimally compressed (i.e., 100% quality), otherwise untouched jpeg of the original tiff is uploaded as a reference (with the possibility that I'll prefer it once I see it). I believe the tiff itself is too big for Commons. Chick Bowen 01:35, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't have access to a connection that powerful. What we have on commons is this, which is highly compressed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:33, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll do it. Hang on a bit. Chick Bowen 03:30, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Added as an alt. Support either, preference for alt. The edited version looks to me like the perspective correction is eyeballed, not based on a verifiable frame of reference. Thus, I'd rather have the unedited version. WB of the alt is typical of NASA Mars photos, probably doesn't need correcting except for cosmetic purposes. Chick Bowen 04:04, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Alt 2 also. Chick Bowen 00:56, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Impressive. Not sure if the colours will be accepted in the main article though (although edited in the original, they do look a little more vibrant) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:15, 14 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Great photo! You almost can't tell that it was taken in a film studio... 138.38.3.39 (talk) 11:22, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Support original I was very much undecided here. On one hand perhaps the (thin) atmosphere is dusty, in which case the alt would be better, but on the other hand the original does allow the details of the rover itself to be seen more clearly. However, it appears in the article to illustrate the rover, not Mars. Thus I am happy with the original. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JJ Harrison (talk • contribs) 04:17, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Support either version as editor of the original. WB correction has been done based on the grey markers on the robot, contrast increase because we simply aren't used to seeing photos with such linear tonemapping. I think which version is better really depends on the specific usage case. --Julian H. ( talk  ) 10:19, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for coming by. I don't suppose you have a version that has the WB correction but not the PC? Chick Bowen 00:39, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * That could be easily done, I can upload such a version tomorrow. Should I overwrite the current one with that? If the PC doesn't help, that would be the easiest way. --Julian H. ( talk  ) 17:14, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd go separate, as the Commons policy prohibits overwriting Featured Pictures. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:09, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * That makes a lot of sense. Find it here, then: File:PIA16239 High-Resolution Self-Portrait by Curiosity Rover Arm Camera npc.jpg --Julian H. ( talk  ) 09:44, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I find the one featured at Commons better, but I prefer this new version over the dustier one (for the sake of being able to see the rover) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:45, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Julian. I added it as an additional alt. Chick Bowen 00:56, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Support original Dusty or not the edit looks like all the color was washed out.  Cat-five t  c   06:57, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Original Only Going with the original on this one. I think it looks better then the others. I might add, that dust storms and blowing dust are rather frequent on Mars to my knowledge, so the dusty look is rather unavoidable, and merely contributes to the EV. Dusty 777 01:28, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'm curious: how was this photograph taken without part of the rover extending out of the frame to hold the camera that took the photograph?  Did Curiosity detach one of its cameras and then pose?  Spikebrennan (talk) 16:06, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The robotic arm that contains the camera has been edited out by stitching together all the parts of the image that don't contain it. You can actually see the gap in the image where the arm is attached, an incomplete disk with a bit of a "ghost" to it, as you'd normally see where a stitched image doesn't quite come together. This picture shows where it's attached. Chick Bowen 18:42, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

--Armbrust The Homunculus 12:46, 22 February 2013 (UTC)