Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Near Infrared Tree

Near Infrared Tree


This is a highly instructive and attractive image used in the article Infrared photography and also in at least one foreign-language Wikipedia for an article on the same subject. It meets all of the featured picture criteria. There is noticeable noise at full resolution but this should be left alone -- when you severely limit the spectrum of light being captured, the duration of the exposure and the necessary ISO setting result in side effects like additional noise. To remove it would be to lessen the pedagogical value of the image. I'm surprised this isn't already a featured picture. Taken by User:Dschwen.


 * Nominate and support either, but prefer original. - Moondigger 19:11, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Good illustration, particularly by having the visible color version as well, and by being a shot of foliage. --Davepape 20:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Prefer original (IR by itself), but support either. --Davepape 20:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|15px]] Oppose - not pleasing to the eye --Ineffable3000 20:51, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, that's a subjective one... it's pleasing to my eye. -- Moondigger 21:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|15px]] Oppose Original - Neutral Edit - The subject is not clear without further instructions. At first i thought it's a toy or something. Then i saw the full res and I said, what an ugly fake image. Until i read the information. Anyway, no wonder it's not FP. Good picture for it's article but it's not FP material specially with that blur. Arad 21:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The edit is much better since It explains better. Arad 01:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


 * It is a highly instructive near infrared image. The fact that you didn't know what it was led you to read more about it and by your own admission, you learned something about the topic you didn't previously know -- one of the primary criteria for FPs.  Your objection is as if somebody objected to an image taken on black & white film because it doesn't show red, green or blue tones, and therefore looks "fake." -- Moondigger 22:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * BTW, the "blur" is another attribute of infrared photography at wider apertures (oversimplification, but nonetheless...), due to the nature of how those wavelengths diffract in lenses designed for visible light. In other words, the blur has additional pedagogical value, since it accurately represents the topic. -- Moondigger 22:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Support with preference for the original -- an excellent example of IR photography.  howch e  ng   {chat} 03:47, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Edit 1, Oppose original. It's much more striking when in contrast. It also looks like a cool Diptych. -Ravedave (help name my baby) 05:14, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Support either version. Prefer Original Glaurung 05:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Support either version. —Jared Hunt September 11, 2006, 06:34 (UTC)
 * Support edit 1, very informative/encyclopedic. --Janke | Talk 07:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: The images can be combined in presentation, as they were in the article, without actually being combined in Photoshop. Either way works for me, with a slight preference for the original. -- Moondigger 10:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Contrary to others I don't think it is that encyclopaedic. say1988 14:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose . It would be more interesting to have an IR photograph where we can see details that we can't see otherwise. Aren't there flowers that look white in visible light but look different under IR light? (or was it under UV, I don't know...) Or is it possible to capture the IR emission from people or animals? Another problem is that we don't know how the false colors correspond to the IR light. It has some artistic appeal, but I don't find it sufficient for FP. --Bernard 17:11, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The flower example you're thinking of is for UV light, not IR. Of course foliage looks different (brighter) in IR light than it does in visible light, which is why this is such a good image, IMO.  But the particular flower example you're probably thinking of has nothing to do with IR light.
 * The IR from people or animals example would be more appropriate for far infrared (thermal imaging), not near infrared. This is an ideal image to demonstrate near infrared photography, given the copious amounts of foliage present in the image.  I hope you'll reconsider your vote given these explanations. -- Moondigger 17:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutral. Ok, I'm ready to believe it is a good example of IR photography. Thanks. --Bernard 18:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Suppport Edit, Oppose original The comparison is much better at illustrating the subject than the original, we can apreciate the difference much better.Nnfolz 17:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Support edit - I like the juxtaposition. InvictaHOG 17:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Week Oppose. This looks too much like a rotation of colours. I'd like to see (say) an animal in the picture shown as very bright. However, from the selection for voting, I prefer the two images against each other. (Even though this is a weak-oppose vote.) --Billpg 03:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Sigh. An animal shown very bright would be thermal imaging -- far infrared. This is near infrared, for which foliage (as shown in this image) is a "classic" subject.  I give up.  I won't withdraw the nomination, but I'm not going to spend any more time defending or explaining it. -- Moondigger 04:09, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * BTW, does that vote mean you'll oppose for a week, then support? :^) -- Moondigger 04:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Abstain. I'm a naughty boy for posting in haste and not reading. *slaps wrist* :) --Billpg 14:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Support edit 1. Per nomination. Nauticashades 16:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Support both, prefer edit 1. PPGMD 21:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Support either, but I prefer the original. --S0uj1r0 04:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Support edit 1, unless the two images can be put together some other way (just grouped in seperate thumbnails or something). But since that sounds more difficult than a single image, i.e. edit 1, I prefer edit 1. Per above. -- Tewy  03:13, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Support either (having been asked to choose) original. – Outriggr § 23:41, 14 September 2006 (UTC) & – Outriggr  § 23:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Support either.with preference for the original.--Pixel ;-) 09:06, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Edit 1 impressive - Marmoulak 00:17, 17 September 2006 (UTC).
 * Support either, preference for Edit 1. --jjron 12:21, 17 September 2006 (UTC)