Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Comet P1 McNaught02 - 23-01-07.jpg

Comet P1 McNaught
A comet in the sky is really quite an amazing sight. You read about them and see photos but to look at it in real life is exceptional. Unfortunately I was skywatching a day late - the day before (the 22nd) it was apparently much brighter. However it was still OK on the 23rd when I took this shot. Taken at ~24mm, f/4, 20 seconds, ISO 800 and lightening in Photoshop the quality isn't optimum, but I believe the rarity of the sight makes up for it. Conditions were quite good, but as you can see there was some cloud matter still tinged red from sunset (the comet was only visible for a short time before it went behind the hills).


 * Support Self Nom. --Fir0002 02:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Very detailed picture.Im going to show it to my science teacher.Bewareofdog 05:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Support version first nominated (i.e. not original, maybe you should call it unedited?). --Cody.Pope 07:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Support In fact, I was waiting for a FP quality shot of this... --Janke | Talk 07:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. I had been too Janke.. ;-). Fir0002, you squeezed a lot out of that original, well done. I would have attempted a portrait format shot of it with the 85mm f/1.8 lens too though. I noticed one of the shots from South Africa in the gallery was taken at 280mm, so evidently it was looking only at the comet's bright head and not its impressive but comparatively dull tail, but I think the 85mm would have been a good short telephoto and would have allowed you to shoot at f/1.8-f/2.2 and capture far more light! Anyway, just a thought. Diliff  | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * An excellent idea and one which I had thought of but didn't try due to the cut off which would have resulted. I tried again last night to take a few shots with the 85mm, but it just cuts off too much tail. I guess a verticle pano would be possible but as a moving object I'm not sure how well that will work. --Fir0002 22:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It would work quite well actually as long as the exposure was reasonably short. You'd have less time to work with as it would start to motion blur quicker than with the 17-40mm, but as long as only one of the frames had the foreground (landmass) included, the motion of the earth turning would have no impact on the stitching. Everything would still be in the correct location relative to each other and as far as the stitching is concerned, the fact that the earth turned between frames would be of no consequence! It would be just like twisting the camera slightly which is something that is easily allowed for by stitching software. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 00:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Support Very nice picture.  You should put this one on the main page ITN section.  The other picture is super grainy.  --Midnight Rider 18:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Don't like the grain, but I guess it was dark. | A ndonic O Talk · Sign Here 19:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Support, some grain. but rare sight.. - mw 22:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Suppot I agree that it is an amazing site that shows the beauty that the universe can give! I was actually going to nominate it myself but you beat me to it - Jh  fireboy   I'm listening  22:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Sweet. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Nice picture, I like the colours, a little grainy, but I think thats because of the lighting.Voshvoshka 00:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. I'm quite jealous. All the pictures from Victoria look so much better than whatever we saw up in Sydney :( enochlau (talk) 03:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Support- quite impressive. Especially considering the original.  Jor co ga Hi!02:25, Saturday, January 27 2007
 * Support Encyclopedic and highly detailed. Very nice!  S h a r k f a c e  2 1 7  03:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Support - Wonderful photo! Fir0002, you continue your legacy quite impressivly. although, I'd like to see more information about the comet on the image page, in the commons way. - Jack (talk) 04:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Support I am impressed you got such a good exposure with so little motion blur on the stars, I wish I had a camera that had an ISO 800 worth using(I have ISO 800 but the noise is terrible, so I nevere go above 200). HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. Amazing shot --⁪froth T 04:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Support - Humm ... Excite! Ali 18:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

--KFP (talk | contribs) 13:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)