343:. 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. --
156:
128:
57:
34:
162:- 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.
190:
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
81:
and also in at least one foreign-language
Knowledge (XXG) 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
356:
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
200:
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
352:
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
425:
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. --
82:
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
499:, 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. --
315:: 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. --
601:
17:
385:
The comparison is much better at illustrating the subject than the original, we can apreciate the difference much better.
581:
568:
556:
544:
507:
491:
479:
467:
451:
439:
430:
420:
401:
389:
373:
361:
347:
333:
319:
307:
277:
262:
244:
205:
195:
179:
166:
147:
138:
119:
110:
98:
191:
image taken on black & white film because it doesn't show red, green or blue tones, and therefore looks "fake." --
410:. This looks too much like a rotation of colours. I'd like to see (say) an animal in the picture shown as very bright.
106:. Good illustration, particularly by having the visible color version as well, and by being a shot of foliage. --
223:
539:
528:
78:
61:
50:
38:
534:
523:
488:
464:
238:
135:
69:
436:
427:
398:
358:
316:
304:
287:
202:
192:
144:
95:
65:
42:
565:
553:
595:
370:
344:
274:
257:
230:
218:
116:
107:
412:
However, from the selection for voting, I prefer the two images against each other.
330:
83:
155:
127:
448:
417:
386:
56:
46:
578:
476:
300:
33:
447:. I'm a naughty boy for posting in haste and not reading. *slaps wrist* :) --
369:. Ok, I'm ready to believe it is a good example of IR photography. Thanks. --
501:
215:
with preference for the original -- an excellent example of IR photography.
176:
163:
435:
BTW, does that vote mean you'll oppose for a week, then support? :^) --
253:
252:. It's much more striking when in contrast. It also looks like a cool
77:
This is a highly instructive and attractive image used in the article
55:
32:
329:. Contrary to others I don't think it is that encyclopaedic.
143:
Well, that's a subjective one... it's pleasing to my eye. --
115:
Prefer original (IR by itself), but support either. --
175:The edit is much better since It explains better.
8:
18:Knowledge (XXG):Featured picture candidates
552:either.with preference for the original.--
414:(Even though this is a weak-oppose vote.)
299:edit 1, very informative/encyclopedic. --
60:Edit 1 by Ravedave combined both images.
533:23:41, 14 September 2006 (UTC) & –
487:either, but I prefer the original. --
7:
602:Ended featured picture nominations
588:Promoted Image:Tree example IR.jpg
24:
577:either, preference for Edit 1. --
64:of a tree, taken with a Hoya R72
41:of a tree, taken with a Hoya R72
154:
126:
292:September 11, 2006, 06:34 (UTC)
250:Support Edit 1, Oppose original
94:either, but prefer original. -
582:12:21, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
569:00:17, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
557:09:06, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
545:23:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
518:(having been asked to choose)
508:03:13, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
492:04:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
480:21:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
468:16:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
452:14:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
440:04:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
431:04:09, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
421:03:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
402:17:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
390:17:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
383:Suppport Edit, Oppose original
374:18:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
362:17:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
348:17:11, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
334:14:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
320:10:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
308:07:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
278:05:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
263:05:14, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
245:03:47, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
206:22:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
196:22:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
180:01:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
167:21:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
160:Oppose Original - Neutral Edit
148:21:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
139:20:51, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
120:20:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
111:20:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
99:19:11, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
1:
397:- I like the juxtaposition.
134:- not pleasing to the eye --
72:photograph of the same tree.
618:
201:represents the topic. --
463:edit 1. Per nomination.
73:
53:
475:both, prefer edit 1.
59:
36:
79:Infrared photography
62:Infrared photograph
39:Infrared photograph
74:
54:
28:Near Infrared Tree
357:explanations. --
285:either version. —
261:
242:
609:
537:
526:
504:
293:
270:either version.
260:
243:
236:
233:
228:
221:
158:
130:
70:Visible spectrum
617:
616:
612:
611:
610:
608:
607:
606:
592:
591:
535:
524:
502:
291:
272:Prefer Original
231:
224:
219:
216:
66:infrared filter
43:infrared filter
31:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
615:
613:
605:
604:
594:
593:
585:
584:
572:
562:Support Edit 1
559:
547:
510:
497:Support edit 1
494:
482:
470:
458:
457:
456:
455:
454:
433:
404:
392:
380:
379:
378:
377:
376:
354:
336:
324:
323:
322:
294:
280:
265:
247:
210:
209:
208:
198:
185:
184:
183:
182:
170:
169:
152:
151:
150:
124:
123:
122:
101:
76:
45:. This is NOT
30:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
614:
603:
600:
599:
597:
590:
589:
583:
580:
576:
573:
570:
567:
564:impressive -
563:
560:
558:
555:
551:
548:
546:
543:
542:
538:
532:
531:
527:
521:
517:
514:
511:
509:
506:
505:
498:
495:
493:
490:
486:
483:
481:
478:
474:
471:
469:
466:
465:Nauticashades
462:
459:
453:
450:
446:
443:
442:
441:
438:
434:
432:
429:
424:
423:
422:
419:
415:
411:
409:
405:
403:
400:
396:
393:
391:
388:
384:
381:
375:
372:
368:
365:
364:
363:
360:
355:
351:
350:
349:
346:
342:
341:
337:
335:
332:
328:
325:
321:
318:
314:
311:
310:
309:
306:
302:
298:
295:
290:
289:
284:
281:
279:
276:
273:
269:
266:
264:
259:
255:
251:
248:
246:
240:
235:
234:
229:
227:
222:
214:
211:
207:
204:
199:
197:
194:
189:
188:
187:
186:
181:
178:
174:
173:
172:
171:
168:
165:
161:
157:
153:
149:
146:
142:
141:
140:
137:
136:Ineffable3000
133:
129:
125:
121:
118:
114:
113:
112:
109:
105:
102:
100:
97:
93:
90:Nominate and
89:
88:
87:
85:
80:
71:
67:
63:
58:
52:
51:Thermographic
48:
44:
40:
35:
29:
26:
19:
587:
586:
574:
561:
549:
540:
529:
519:
515:
512:
500:
496:
484:
472:
460:
444:
413:
407:
406:
395:Support edit
394:
382:
366:
339:
338:
326:
312:
296:
286:
282:
271:
267:
249:
225:
217:
212:
159:
131:
103:
91:
84:User:Dschwen
75:
27:
408:Week Oppose
47:Ultraviolet
437:Moondigger
428:Moondigger
399:InvictaHOG
359:Moondigger
317:Moondigger
288:Jared Hunt
203:Moondigger
193:Moondigger
145:Moondigger
96:Moondigger
49:NOR is it
566:Marmoulak
554:Pixel ;-)
596:Category
536:Outriggr
525:Outriggr
520:original
275:Glaurung
258:Ravedave
117:Davepape
108:Davepape
68:above a
575:Support
550:Support
513:Support
489:S0uj1r0
485:Support
473:Support
461:Support
445:Abstain
371:Bernard
367:Neutral
345:Bernard
331:say1988
313:Comment
297:Support
283:Support
268:Support
254:Diptych
213:Support
104:Support
92:support
516:either
449:Billpg
418:Billpg
387:Nnfolz
353:light.
340:Oppose
327:Oppose
132:Oppose
579:jjron
477:PPGMD
301:Janke
220:howch
37:Near
16:<
503:Tewy
305:Talk
239:chat
177:Arad
164:Arad
86:.
522:. –
256:. -
598::
416:--
303:|
232:ng
571:.
541:§
530:§
241:}
237:{
226:e
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
