Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Tracy Caldwell Dyson in Cupola ISS

Tracy Caldwell Dyson in Cupola
Voting period ends on 14 Jan 2011 at 04:45:39 (UTC)
 * Reason:Beautiful picture of a human looking at the Earth from space. Both the plain-clothed human and the round Earth are more identifiable that the usual image of a human in a space suit or a straight-down view from Earth orbit. Greatly enhances the Cupola article by demonstrating the module's unique value.
 * Articles in which this image appears:Cupola (ISS module), Tracy Caldwell Dyson, International Space Station
 * FP category for this image:Featured pictures/Space/Looking back
 * Creator:NASA/Douglas Wheelock


 * Support as nominator --Bp0 (talk) 04:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong support I find this to be a simply amazing, eye-catching image. It looks like something Hollywood would have made. I also motion that we suggest to Howcheng that he have this picture jump the 1-year-plus queue and feature this within a month or two after (when / if) it is promoted. Greg L (talk) 05:39, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Support with both hands and legs. Stunning composition. Agree with Greg L about queue jump. Twilight chill  t   12:27, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Support per Greg... I however don't agree with the queue jump - Howcheng should be left to decide things like that himself... It's a great picture yes, but so are others that get promoted... I don't understand the urgency of promoting this to the head of the queue... gaz hiley .co.uk  13:23, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * My motion is just to pass along the *suggestion* to Howcheng. Wikipedia is a hobby for everyone and somewhat of a club for many—with great latitude to do as we please for maximum fun. Nothing is forcing us to behave on FPC as if the rod up our butts has a rod up it’s butt. Howcheng is always free to do what he will after the suggestion (or idea) is passed along from other club members. Greg L (talk) 17:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * True, but why push this over the rest? what makes this that special? gaz hiley .co.uk  22:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, the first thing that makes it special is there are exceedingly few human beings who can go to this place to take such a picture. Since I’m a certified SCUBA diver, I could theoretically capture the fish pictures that appear here at FPC; not so with this shot. I think it looks so amazing surreal, it appears like a fabricated special effect from a 2001: A Space Odyssey. Greg L (talk) 01:07, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Support too bad it's noisy, but since it was taken by an astronaut, and given the original lighting conditions, that's fine. Purpy Pupple (talk) 17:13, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * See my comment below about EXIF regarding original lighting conditions. Purpy Pupple (talk) 17:18, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Support, though I can't say I'm as excited as Greg :P J Milburn (talk) 18:10, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose Weak EV. Makeemlighter (talk) 19:24, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I suppose I should elaborate, although it doesn't much matter at this point. Tracy Caldwell Dyson already has a far superior image with better EV. Cupola (ISS module) doesn't have any great images, but all of them show what a cupola is better than this one. Makeemlighter (talk) 20:44, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Love this image - it shows the wonder of exploration. 19:52 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose Images with better EV are available for both the Astronaut and the Cupola. Noodle snacks (talk) 23:00, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * In the articles for the astronaut and the cupola, this image seems to be the only one that actually shows an astronaut inside the cupola, giving it more EV than either an image showing just the astronaut, or an image showing just the cupola. Purpy Pupple (talk) 00:38, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. That was my reaction to this picture: I had no idea the windows afforded such a panoramic view through each pane. Now I understand much better the value of the Cupola. Greg L (talk) 01:09, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Support According to the definition, featured pictures are images that add significantly to articles, either by illustrating article content particularly well, or being eye-catching to the point where users will want to read its accompanying article. This picture is most definitely eye-catching to the point where users will want to read its accompanying articles. -- Lando-SpacePimp 23:57, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Support --Mmealling (talk) 23:57, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Compelling, well executed and high EV in my opinion. The angle and the inclusion of the astronaut in the shot makes it more EV then the others. A shot from outside the station or the other shot that just shows like bland ground through the windows is not nearly as powerful as showing the curvature of the earth clearly indicating a much wider view through the windows. — raeky  t  02:26, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Very high EV, in my opinion. -- mcshadypl T C  06:46, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Support, I assumed this was a screen cap from a sci-fi film donated to us when I first saw it! Great stuff! Sabine's Sunbird  talk  21:55, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - Gorgeous image, really illustrates the point of the Cupola. Colds7ream (talk) 08:09, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Support But they need better low-light cameras in space. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 14:14, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Would this not reduce the visual appearance of the earth though? To me what makes this picture so striking is the colour and clarity of the earth poking through the darkness of the Cupola... gaz hiley .co.uk  14:56, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment According to EXIF of the original image, it was taken with a Nikon D2Xs with exposure time of 1/1600s, f/4.5, with a 16mm lens, at ISO 200 - so it isn't exactly "low light". The exposure time should have been set to 1/800s instead for more correct exposure (I presume such a professional camera would have enough dynamic range to still capture the Earth without clipping); but whatever... it was taken by an astronaut, not a photographer! Purpy Pupple (talk) 17:18, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment It seems that Smalljim's retouched version, uploaded over the original version, has too aggressive JPG compression (filesize is smaller, for instance); and has scrubbed all EXIF data! Don't you think it would be better to revert the overwrite and upload the retouched version as a separate file? Purpy Pupple (talk) 17:26, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Edited version is just fine, the original one is excessively dark and I can barely see anything there. Twilight chill  t   19:04, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the retouched version is ugly, particularly when you look at it at full size. The poor technicals really stand out. Makeemlighter (talk) 20:44, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Support per above-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 09:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

-- Mae din\ talk 19:10, 17 January 2011 (UTC)