Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Hubble ultra deep field.jpg

Hubble Ultra Deep Field [edit]

Few images are a grand achievement in and of themselves. This is the grandest of those few. Eleven days' exposure reveals thousands of galaxies in a pinprick of sky. It is the deepest image ever taken in visible light, and the light from the most distant galaxies shows our universe over 13 billion years ago.

• Nominate and support. - HUDF 10:49, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• This photo is interesting - it does not show something visually spectacular compared to other space photos, but it *does* show the oldest visible object that we can see. I think that warrants a support. --vaeiou 17:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I'm afraid. I find this image not visually striking, shocking nor informative. Without the accompanying text it just looks like a collection of lights to me. Sorry. - Mgm|^(talk) 20:40, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I think this image IS visually striking and highly informative WITH the accompanying text. If you actually open the image to full size it is obvious and immediately apparent that it is not a mere 'collection of lights' but is in fact full of galaxies each containing billions of stars, bright nearby stars and (likely) a few extremely distant quasars. Open the full image and look at it again, you are looking at an area of sky smaller than the area of your fingernail held at arms length. The image is not merely stunning, it is completely mindbending. --Deglr6328 21:40, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Even upon first sight this is obviously more than just lights or stars - it is human astronomy at its peak.
• Support. Agree that it is visually striking when viewed full size, particularly when, as Deglr6328 mentioned, you consider what each of the 'lights' are. I have uploaded an edit which has an adjusted black point, meaning the background is now darker and closer to what I image deep space looks like, and as far as I can tell, there is no major loss of detail as a result. The original, when viewed at 100%, has a washed out dark grey haze in the background which I assume is the due to the CCD's long exposure, not the light from the actual scene. If I'm wrong, I'm happy to stand corrected but I think my image is more 'correct' and visually pleasing. Comments? Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 23:38, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support darkened version - the previous contributors have said it all - Adrian Pingstone 09:00, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support After all the problems with the original optics, Hubble can now go this deep into space. Fantastic image. --Janke | Talk 18:01, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit. I normally look askance at FP nominations where you need the text to understand why the pic is interesting, but this one is such an amazing pic that all other considerations go out the window! Nice noise reduction Diliff. I did download the max resolution (over 100MB) version of this pic from the source site with the intention of trying to do something about the background myself. On that version you can see that what was rendered as washed out gray in this smaller version was a noisy speckling of coloured pixels, mostly blue with some green and a little red. ~ Veledan • Talk 18:14, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - A pity Hubble isn't going to be repaired. A pity that 3 billion dollar total cost of Hubble is too much to renew - while we lose 9 billion per month to war. But I don't suppose the FPC page is the right place to get all political. Debivort 20:40, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strictly speaking all you have done is point out a fact. It gets political when you take a side, which have not done. TomStar81 08:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, preference for the darkened version -- Chris 73 | Talk 14:18, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit. The sky is full of candy.--Eloquence* 03:17, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:23, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Snakes 02:23, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --TomStar81 08:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The edited version is spectacular! --Ironchef8000 21:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• ( + ) Support Top stuff --Fir0002 07:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I've always loved this photo. enochlau (talk) 15:26, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• User:JQF/Support second. It displays the complexity of the world beyond very nicely. JQF 21:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image: Hubble ultra deep field.jpg Raven4x4x 05:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]