Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Mount Pleasant Radio Telescope.jpg

Mount Pleasant Radio Telescope

 * Reason:Clear view of the dish, reciever, rotation mechanism, counter weights etc. Good quality
 * Articles this image appears in:Mount Pleasant Radio Observatory, Very Long Baseline Interferometry, Radio telescope
 * Creator:Noodle snacks


 * Support any (prefer original) as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 03:09, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Just a quick note to point out that the shot is level, it just looks slightly off due to the angle of the hillside and the telescope. Noodle snacks (talk) 03:14, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Wow immediately came to mind. Very well composed and little distortion. Seems pretty good for a shot at 16mm. There is a small sign of noise but nothing major. What does concern me is the dead space to the left. I'll leave that for others to decide. 1/2000s and f/8 this is how pictures should be, I'm tired of seeing f/22. Possibly your best contribution yet! Victorrocha (talk) 03:32, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * FWIW it's taken at 1/640s. --jjron (talk) 14:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Just stating the obvious errors many other people make when shooting static subjects.Victorrocha (talk) 16:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you meant with "seems pretty good for a shot at 16mm" but if you were talking about low distorsion, this is 16mm on a 1.6 crop body, making it a 26mm in 35mm equiv. and hence the moderate distorsion. Blieusong (talk) 17:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak Support crop I'm not sure if it's because of the 16mm lens or because of the angle of the machinery behind the dish, but the the dish has a very flat almost 2D appearance. Because of that, and the LHS dead space, I think the composition could be improved --Fir0002 07:54, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I have images further to the front of the dish, but you miss out on the view of the machinery at the back, so the enc is reduced in doing so. A crop is a possibility on the LHS. I would have thought that 16mm would exaggurate perspective, not flatten it (like a telephoto would), interesting though. Noodle snacks (talk) 08:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah not altogether sure but every time I look at I get the same impression - perhaps the lack of depth comes from the lack of shadows created by the HDR? But I think the main reason is the angle of the supporting machinery - the top and bottom truss work inside the dish align with the machinery behind the dish... Compare Image:KSC radio telescope.jpg which works a lot better in terms of conveying the shape of the dish IMO --Fir0002 05:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak support. I feel that in this case, unlike your recent Gordon Dam image, the clouds are detrimental to the image, with the telescope slightly blending into them, as opposed to say a clear blue sky. And agree with Victorrocha and Fir0002 that it appears to have a little too much space at left. Nonetheless a good shot. --jjron (talk) 14:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I was probably thinking of cropping off about half as much as has been done. In that respect the crop possibly loses as much as it gains. --jjron (talk) 07:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, i did fiddle around when i was trying the crop, i found that cutting a little bit made the composition feel off to me. Noodle snacks (talk) 11:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Support per nom and EV. Intothewoods29 (talk) 16:05, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Support Original I agree that the clouds are overcooked. High EV and I like the composition with the space on the left. That's where the telescope is aimed and where all the radio waves are flying into the image. IMO it would feel wrong cropped tighter. Mfield (talk) 17:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Cropped tighter, but i'd probably agree with Mfield, prefering the non cropped version, though the cropped version does look better in thumbnails Noodle snacks (talk) 17:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Depends on the use. From a photographic/artistic point of view the composition of the original is far stronger. From an encyclopedic point of view, the crop wins. I still prefer the original. Mfield (talk) 17:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Support cropped version more EV than the original. The original may do better at commons FPC. Muhammad (talk) 18:02, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Support either with preference for edit Muhammad (talk) 12:50, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Support original version I don't think that cropping adds EV. IMO the part of the image that was cropped is not distracting; if anything it adds context. Tokugawapants (talk) 18:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Support original, weak oppose crop - I just find the cropped version not as interesting or dramatic, and as one of the purposes of a featured picture is to draw the person in and make them want to learn more, the loss of the dramatic background makes the crop much weaker in regards to that criterion. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 04:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Support original - Considering that the EV is similar in both versions I prefer the aesthetics and dramatism of the first -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:27, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Support crop technically good, visually appealing image that adds value to the article. I'd imagine that the crop would be the preferred by editors developing the article since the additional background doesn't really add anything in terms of value, just distracting from the subject of the article. Guest9999 (talk) 23:17, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

MER-C 12:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)