Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Hubble Extreme Deep Field

Hubble XDF (Extreme Deep Field)

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 Oct 2012 at 06:46:47 (UTC)

Original – Hubble Extreme Deep Field (full resolution) released by NASA on September 25th, 2012.

Alt (PNG) – Hubble Extreme Deep Field (full resolution) released by NASA on September 25th, 2012.

Reason: A breathtaking view of some of the oldest galaxies in the Universe. Good quality and difficult to recreate.
Articles in which this image appears: Hubble Extreme Deep Field, Hubble Ultra-Deep Field, Astronomy
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Space/Looking out
Creator: NASA; ESA; G. Illingworth, D. Magee, and P. Oesch, University of California, Santa Cruz; R. Bouwens, Leiden University; and the HUDF09 Team

Support as nominator --EngineerFromVega ^★ 06:46, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support A very important image scientifically, a true accomplishment. — raeky t 20:35, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why not convert this to JPEG or at least PNG? Having articles link to TIFs, which require an external viewer, is not very reader-friendly. Chick Bowen 23:25, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There's no policy reason why you'd need to use one format over another. — raeky t 01:33, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've uploaded a PNG version as an alternative. Please take a look. I've used OS X Preview app to convert from TIFF to PNG. EngineerFromVega ^★ 04:01, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- One thing you need to know about formats, since you suggested JPEG, is that TIFF and PNG are lossless formats, whereas JPEG is lossy, you'd NEVER want to prefer a JPEG over a TIFF/PNG. Secondly for publishing TIFF would be preferred format. — raeky t 15:08, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support: A remarkable shot - a technical accomplishment in itself - and of great scientific importance and much public interest (its release saw it featured on the front pages of many media). Plutonium27 (talk) 23:52, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re format - pref. alt version. The most important thing is quality and I cannot see a difference in the two versions here. TIF has its advantages but the opening external viewer requirement is a bit of a pain. Plutonium27 (talk) 00:03, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Woooooo! Aaadddaaammm (talk) 18:58, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Pine^✉ 01:34, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Hubble Extreme Deep Field (full resolution).png --Julia\^talk 05:23, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]