Hmmm, the original version is actually of decent quality, concering the circumstances it was made. So my initial oppose was due to the POTY surprise. I'll stay Neutral for now. --
Dschwen17:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment - Probably so; I've been hanging around for a while, but it's my first nom and I couldn't figure out how to add more than one image in the template. —
Goodmanjaz04:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose POTY edit and Edit 3 I was trying to find out what the motivation for the color correction was, but can't find any other than it seems to make it look prettier. The main problem is that it turned the aurora turquoise and the snow blue, killing any enc the original had. I haven't made up my mind yet about the original. ~
trialsanderrors05:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose original, weak support my edit. I fixed the problems that bugged me with the original without overdoing the color correction like in the POTY edit. I agree with Alvesgaspar that this is among the best impressions of an aurora borealis (compare
Flickr), so with a number of edits the technical problems should be solvable. Happy to ditch this though if someone finds a better picture of an aurora. ~
trialsanderrors17:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment I'm not a photograph expert, but as I'm grouw up in such conditions, I personally can assert that the snow may look like that. →
AzaToth18:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Not sure what this means but when comparing to the original I'm not buying that a turquoise aurora reflects purple in the snow. When I'm trying to recreate the edit I have to move the blue color balance slider all the way over to the right, something that doesn't instill any confidence in me that this was done to replicate the original natural colors. ~
trialsanderrors20:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Support color corrected edit. I'd rather see the snow blue than a sickly yellow-green. As for the "true" color, that's impossible to tell. In low light, the human eye loses color vision, and cameras and films behave differently than in normal lighting conditions. However, the edit matches the majority of aurora pics I've seen. As for being grainy, that's pretty unavoidable - I'm sure this wasn't shot at 50 ISO speed... ;-) --
Janke |
Talk08:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Neutral - Aesthetically it is overdone and somehow kitschy. Also, the deformation is annoying and the photographic quality is not great even considering the difficult conditions of the shot. But I won't oppose the promotion: it is still the best available
Aurora borealis image and the Commons POTY 2006. However I'm not surprised with the promotion, anyone has noticed the voters' comments (the quantity and the quality) in the four best pics? It is not by chance that I have tried (with no success)to select the POTY 2006 by a "consensual type" of election rather than by a "blind voting"-
Alvesgaspar13:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose All The original two per above. Edit 2 (trialsanderrors) looks unsaturated and lacking in contrast. -
Fcb98100:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Support POTY - Not my favorite but we should defer to the judgment of hundreds of other Wikipedians from a broader audience. —dgiestc20:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose It seems that the camera hasn't been still during exposure, as the stars are stretched. →
AzaToth 20:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)Neutral changing because of invalid reasoning from my side. →
AzaToth22:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)reply
The exposure length is 25 seconds. The stars moved. If they used an automatic steering device, the ground would be blurred. —dgiestc20:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose. Very nasty colors before photoshopping and since the main appeal of image is the beautiful colors it's not a very good image --
frothT23:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Hmmm, the original version is actually of decent quality, concering the circumstances it was made. So my initial oppose was due to the POTY surprise. I'll stay Neutral for now. --
Dschwen17:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment - Probably so; I've been hanging around for a while, but it's my first nom and I couldn't figure out how to add more than one image in the template. —
Goodmanjaz04:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose POTY edit and Edit 3 I was trying to find out what the motivation for the color correction was, but can't find any other than it seems to make it look prettier. The main problem is that it turned the aurora turquoise and the snow blue, killing any enc the original had. I haven't made up my mind yet about the original. ~
trialsanderrors05:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose original, weak support my edit. I fixed the problems that bugged me with the original without overdoing the color correction like in the POTY edit. I agree with Alvesgaspar that this is among the best impressions of an aurora borealis (compare
Flickr), so with a number of edits the technical problems should be solvable. Happy to ditch this though if someone finds a better picture of an aurora. ~
trialsanderrors17:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment I'm not a photograph expert, but as I'm grouw up in such conditions, I personally can assert that the snow may look like that. →
AzaToth18:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Not sure what this means but when comparing to the original I'm not buying that a turquoise aurora reflects purple in the snow. When I'm trying to recreate the edit I have to move the blue color balance slider all the way over to the right, something that doesn't instill any confidence in me that this was done to replicate the original natural colors. ~
trialsanderrors20:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Support color corrected edit. I'd rather see the snow blue than a sickly yellow-green. As for the "true" color, that's impossible to tell. In low light, the human eye loses color vision, and cameras and films behave differently than in normal lighting conditions. However, the edit matches the majority of aurora pics I've seen. As for being grainy, that's pretty unavoidable - I'm sure this wasn't shot at 50 ISO speed... ;-) --
Janke |
Talk08:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Neutral - Aesthetically it is overdone and somehow kitschy. Also, the deformation is annoying and the photographic quality is not great even considering the difficult conditions of the shot. But I won't oppose the promotion: it is still the best available
Aurora borealis image and the Commons POTY 2006. However I'm not surprised with the promotion, anyone has noticed the voters' comments (the quantity and the quality) in the four best pics? It is not by chance that I have tried (with no success)to select the POTY 2006 by a "consensual type" of election rather than by a "blind voting"-
Alvesgaspar13:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose All The original two per above. Edit 2 (trialsanderrors) looks unsaturated and lacking in contrast. -
Fcb98100:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Support POTY - Not my favorite but we should defer to the judgment of hundreds of other Wikipedians from a broader audience. —dgiestc20:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose It seems that the camera hasn't been still during exposure, as the stars are stretched. →
AzaToth 20:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)Neutral changing because of invalid reasoning from my side. →
AzaToth22:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)reply
The exposure length is 25 seconds. The stars moved. If they used an automatic steering device, the ground would be blurred. —dgiestc20:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose. Very nasty colors before photoshopping and since the main appeal of image is the beautiful colors it's not a very good image --
frothT23:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)reply