Wikipedia:Valued picture candidates/File:Candlespace.jpg

Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 14:37, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Unique image.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Quality is not great, but it's rare and has significant EV. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 17:29, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Oppose I'm concerned about the quality. Feel free to sway me. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 04:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- My guess is that it is noisy since the flame wouldn't be very bright at all. Noodle snacks (talk) 09:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Should we leave all quality concerns to FP :)?--Mbz1 (talk) 20:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I understand how difficult it would have been to take this photo, but I mean it looks like a cell phone took it. Am I missing something? ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 00:53, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well if its not very bright, then either high ISO film or high ISO digital would be required to capture it reasonably quickly, hence the noise. I don't know what the technical details actually are, but imo it will suffice unless a wikipedian flies into space and take a better image. Noodle snacks (talk) 02:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Couldn't we enlist Lance Bass the next time he goes up? ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 17:29, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I thought I'd seen this at better quality before, but it may have been a small printed grayscale version thereby hiding many of the flaws. So I'll give it the benefit of the doubt - definite EV. --jjron (talk) 15:10, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Candlespace.JPG --Ceranthor 16:40, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]