Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Solar eclips 1999 4.jpg

Self nomination. Hi encyclopaedic interest

• support. Already a FP at Wikipedia Commons.Spikebrennan 14:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I'd have nominated this one myself, but I thought it was already featured. -- Moondigger 14:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit 1. A very good example of a solar eclipse. Good job with the noise reduction. HighInBC 15:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Very nice. Great capture of the corona. --Nebular110 15:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I was getting around to nominating this myself.
  chat} 16:32, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Strong support - perfect - Jack (talk) 20:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support. Overall very nice. Unfortunately grainy, but as there's basically no sharp details to speak of in the image the graininess could be readily fixed. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 22:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit 1. I've reduced some of the grain and feel this is a more aesthetically pleasing image now. There are still some artifacts around the edges that could be cleaned up, but I didn't want to be tinkering with actual details. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 23:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit 1. The edit is making this very encyclopedic picture more pleasing to the eye. Mikeo 01:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral on edit 1. Some bad artifacts around the edges, but very good otherwise, so I'm not sure where to stand. --Tewy 03:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: The artifacts existed in both images, but just stand out a bit more when the grain is removed. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 07:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose on edit 1. the "grainy" belongs to the original document, it is film. And it once gives a structure printed on paper.--Luc Viatour 05:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is true, but it is the resulting information that concerns many wikipedians, not the original document that the information is on. I can appreciate both arguments though. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 07:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • if a wikipedians prints the picture, the picture is more “real” with the grain (sorry for my English) --Luc Viatour 07:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't agree that a photo is more 'real' if it contains the imperfections inherent in the capture of the image. I think that what should be determined is what is, visually, the most representative of reality. In this case, I don't think you could say that the grain is part of what makes the image 'real'. Just my opinion though. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 16:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Imperfections caused by the medium are something to be avoided in a clear illustration in my opinion. I think film grain is just as distracting as jpeg artifacts and are both equivilent. HighInBC 17:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Either versions are fine. The subject is very difficult to photograph at such detail, good work.--JyriL ^talk 21:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit 1 --Fir0002 23:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support consensus version. --jjron 06:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]