This is a photo of the Eagle Nebula, perhaps one of the most beautiful and well recognised of Hubble's photos. It is a star forming region, consisting mainly of hydrogen, and the largest pillar is about 4 light years long in height. It is constructed of 3 images with three colours representing different wavelengths: Red shows emission from singly-ionized sulfur atoms. Green shows emission from hydrogen. Blue shows light emitted by doubly- ionized oxygen atoms. It was taken by the Hubble Space Telescope, released into the PD by NASA. I searched through the FPs, and was very surprised not to see this there already. It appears in Eagle Nebula, Hubble Space Telescope and WFPC2 among others.

• Nominate and support. - |→ Spaully°τ 20:35, 6 March 2006 (GMT)
  • Comment: The old version was low quality and highly compressed. I've overwritten with a better version from NASA. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-6 20:57
    • That's better, more like the poster I have sitting behind me also :-) |→ Spaully°τ 21:02, 6 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Comment Nice work, Brian. Alvinrune ^TALK 21:19, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• There is a giant poster of this right above my head. Hmmm.... Support :) — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-6 20:53
• Support I uploaded a slightly improved version and saved it over it, since it was trivial. Now, the image is a little more sharp and vivid. Alvinrune ^TALK 21:10, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I remember admiring this image when it was originally published in Time magazine. --Janke | Talk 21:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I just can't support it due to being an incomplete rectangular image. It looks like a work-in-progress to me. I can appreciate there may be technical constraints but that doesn't mean it has to be featured. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 02:34, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those missing areas are just as famous as the image itself. There are versions without the missing areas, but I don't think they are nearly as high a quality. This is by far one of the most famous images produced by Hubble. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-7 03:10
    • Comment: Brian - can you point to a complete image - we might make a composite, combining the good quality of this with the missing areas from another... --Janke | Talk 06:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • There are some complete versions listed here, although some of them may have been photoshopped. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-7 06:36
        • Browsed through some 10 of those pages, and also did a image search for "Eagle nebula Hubble" and "M16 Hubble", but there was only one "complete" version, all too obviously photoshopped, thus entirely unencyclopedic. So, no go. --Janke | Talk 07:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Fine with me. I like it better this way :) — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-7 07:31
            • Oh? I found this one quite easily and its most definately not a photoshop job (its a composite image as opposed to fake airbrushed stuff). Not to mention this is a better image IMO. Oppose incomplete image.  ALKIVAR™ 13:09, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • The second image you link to has "additions by J. Morse", suggesting it has been supplemented perhaps by other images. As has already been mentioned however the 'ladder step' shape is iconic of the HST due to the technical setup and as such this image demonstrates something that is hard to explain in words. The first image is very nice, but completely different, pehaps you would like to propose it? |→ Spaully°τ 14:20, 11 March 2006 (GMT)
              • Yes, I found that first image as well, but it is way too low in resolution. The 2nd image may be more appealing, but does not have the iconic status of the original. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-12 18:03
              • The J. Morse version looks photoshopped to me, and fairly crudely done at that. You can even see the brush strokes. I could probably do better given a few hours with the clone tool, but I see no point. The original image is staircase-shaped — why try to conceal that? —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 04:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • I originally though "J. Morse" may have been an artist's name, but it looks like he's been involved with a lot of Hubble photographs. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-14 04:03

• This is an iconic HST image, and isn't "featured" status about illustrating articles? The shape is precisely the reason it appears in Hubble Space Telescope - it is the only image there that illustrate the rather odd shape of the field of the WFPC due to its 4 CCDs (three large and one small) (there are a few other similarly shaped images in Wide Field and Planetary Camera 2). -- ALoan (Talk) 11:37, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Didn't know that! Wow, WP is great! Perhaps Diliff will re-evaluate his vote after reading this discussion and checking Wide Field and Planetary Camera 2. Interesting! --Janke | Talk 15:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I'm not bothered by the missing areas, it seems to be a common occurence in NASA pics. We should show them as they are made by NASA and don't manipulate too much. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. If I'd known it wasn't already featured, I'd have nominated it myself. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 22:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Very high quality image. Staxringold 03:33, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Very famous image and a personal favorite of mine. It also does a great job in illustrating the article. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 11:25, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Classic and iconic.--ragesoss 17:52, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Really a great image, I would have thought it was FP already. --Falcorian ^(talk) 17:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very nice. --Lewk_of_Serthic _contrib ^talk 04:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support This is the most iconic images from the HST, it should be a FP here. PPGMD 04:03, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Eagle nebula pillars.jpg ~ Veledan • Talk 18:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]