Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Pale Blue Dot

Pale Blue Dot

 * Reason:This image is of the most distant image of the Earth ever recorded. A large part of its encyclopedic value is in illustrating just how small the Earth is in space - this image is taken from just outside the Solar System. It is essentially non-reproducible. While quality is much lower than would normally be accepted, WP:FPC makes exceptions for images that are "historical or otherwise unique images". The low resolution is a feature inherent in its creation, due to the imaging device used and distance - from a distance of 6 billion kilometres the Earth appears as a tiny speck, visible only at low resolution. The image itself is actually a blown up version of a much smaller image in which the earth is essentially invisible, and the graininess that appears is a function of that increase in size. It appears as NASA created and distributed it - no larger versions are available. It has very high encyclopedic value in illustrating Pale Blue Dot, and signficant encyclopedic value as iconic image of the Voyager Program. Finally, while this is subjective, I believe that the image has "wow", something that has resulted in it being widely recognised as iconic.
 * Articles this image appears in:Voyager program, Pale Blue Dot
 * Creator:NASA Visible Earth, Goddard Institute for Space Studies


 * Support as nominator --Mostlyharmless (talk) 05:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I really don't know how to feel. On one hand I have this sentimentalism that irradiates from the tiny speck that we turn out to be. On the other, after reading the article, I feel deceived. They say the band over the earth is an artifact produced by the sun light, I assume that the other two bands are artifacts too. They say that the earth was 0.12 of a pixel. I can see Carl Sagan taking Paint and painting blue a pixel that only had a tiny component of blue. Something like taking a (100,119,104) pixel in RGB and making it (149, 179, 158). This is a prank of Carl Sagan, but it works on me. I weak support it.  Franklin.vp   11:38, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I could have been a lot clearer in the caption and description - this is a unique image that takes a bit of background knowledge to understand fully (although none is required to appreciate it). Carl Sagan campaigned within NASA to have the images taken and was a major promoted of them after their creation, but it is not his work, and it is not a false colour image (unlike a number of the NASA featured pictures we have): the image "was taken through three color filters -- violet, blue and green -- and recombined to produce the color image" . The image has not been modified, except to make it larger - "The background features in the image are artifacts resulting from the magnification", but NASA resisted artistic adaptation that would have removed this graininess. The entire image was increased in size, so the earth still retains its proportions in the original, and it remains its integrity. The band of light is indeed scattered rays from the sun. Mostlyharmless (talk) 01:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I could have been a lot clearer in the caption and description - this is a unique image that takes a bit of background knowledge to understand fully (although none is required to appreciate it). Carl Sagan campaigned within NASA to have the images taken and was a major promoted of them after their creation, but it is not his work, and it is not a false colour image (unlike a number of the NASA featured pictures we have): the image "was taken through three color filters -- violet, blue and green -- and recombined to produce the color image" . The image has not been modified, except to make it larger - "The background features in the image are artifacts resulting from the magnification", but NASA resisted artistic adaptation that would have removed this graininess. The entire image was increased in size, so the earth still retains its proportions in the original, and it remains its integrity. The band of light is indeed scattered rays from the sun. Mostlyharmless (talk) 01:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I was aware of these details when I posted my comment. Actually it was that what made me think that way :). These are the kind of things that NASA do that are mostly useless but can make us drop a tear. After all, not every day you see such a close-up ;) of the earth. My support would be complete for a picture like the one Voyager took of Neptune.  Franklin.vp   23:55, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Are those colored lines simply byproducts of the picture? It may be worth noting how the distance of 3.7 billion miles measures up with the solar system. Is this distance past the furthest extent of Pluto's orbit? -- mcshadypl T C  22:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Those lines are indeed scattered rays from the sun on the lens (similar to lens flare as I understand it). See comments above. Mostlyharmless (talk) 01:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The photograph was taken somewhere here, outside the solar system. 3.7 billion km is approximately 25 AU - 25 times the distance between the earth and the sun. Mostlyharmless (talk) 01:19, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Are we certain that this is the largest resolution shot available? Is this the original resolution? J Milburn (talk) 00:00, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The actual image taken by NASA was significantly smaller than this (I'm not sure just how small), and this image, blown up in all dimensions is the one that NASA has distributed and has become canonical. See above for comments on the process of increasing the size. (If only they'd taken the image in SVG format ;) Mostlyharmless (talk) 01:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose Okay, I understand the importance of this photo, but it is terrible to look at. Nezzadar   [SPEAK]  03:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Terrible to look at, or with other words not being able to face reality, is not a reason to oppose FP. Elekhh (talk) 11:36, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Response Okay dude, WTF. I know damn well that in the greater cosmic order, Earth is a dinky little P.O.S. planet. I'm a blatant misantrope too, so I have no reason to love earth. Thing is, despite the illustration of Earth in the galaxy, the image still isn't that aesthetic, and its EV isn't that great. Whatever though. You are just reinforcing my deep love for the always rational and intelligent human race. Nezzadar   [SPEAK]  18:29, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

--jjron (talk) 12:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Paradoxically, my biggest gripe with this is that the subject of the image is of such a small size, but it is valuable for precisely that reason. Cowtowner (talk) 04:13, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose It's an interesting picture, and I do like sciency stuff, but the subject is just too darn small, and there's nothing really to look at, otherwise.Takeiuchi (talk) 18:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: Most of my (Mostlyharmless) notes are rather useless, and very biased. They also have no importance. Mostlyharmless (talk) 22:33, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Support This is a HIGHLY irreplaceable and HIGHLY educational image from the far edges of our solar system. Obviously there is some issues with "not much to look at" but that is the entire point of the photograph, that at those distances our earth is nothing more than a partial pixel, lost in the blackness of space. The opposes on that ground are opposing the very educational value of the image and purpose of it. — raeky ( talk 17:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Support despite the nominator's admitted WP:POINTyness. Irreplaceable, unless a larger crop of the same shot were substituted.  Durova  359 00:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, my comments on FPC Talk were admittedly pointy. I do consider that this stands on its merits - I've been thinking about this image for a while. I considered waiting until the Bison delist nom had been closed before nominating this, but I'm procrastinating on a thesis chapter... so I thought I might as well. Mostlyharmless (talk) 01:05, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm certain I saw a mosaic of several of these showing the Earth, Mars and a few other planets mostly within the same frame. Does anyone know if those extra shots were taken?  It would dramatically increase the EV and make it more interesting to have a 'panorama' of several planets.  Time3000 (talk) 18:35, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It's this file: File:Family_portrait_(Voyager_1).png but I'm not sure that file is more encyclopedic, and they're not one image but a composition of many. — raeky ( talk 00:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, on second thoughts I agree. I'll support this one though.  Time3000 (talk) 08:26, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Too darn ugly. And the beam of light falling over the earth which isn't really there isn't good.-- Silversmith  Hewwo 00:07, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak support. Good wow factor, irreplacability erases the quality concerns, but it's a weak one because of the size. I know this is likely the largest version, but I'm just a tad let down by the size.  Spencer T♦ Nominate! 23:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You have to keep in mind this image was made by a video camera that was made in the mid 1970's and has been in space operating for over 30 years. — raeky ( talk 07:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I did. That's why I supported for ev (not counting quality), it's just the sheer size I'm disappointed with, hence the weak.  Spencer T♦ Nominate! 00:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Support. This image cannot be judged within the usual framework, since it questions the relevance of our human civilization in the Universe. However there will be a better shot one day - I hope. Elekhh (talk) 11:36, 10 November 2009 (UTC)