Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:F--18.jpg

Image:F--18.jpg - featured

Version 1 (left) - not featured

•  Info created by US Navy — uploaded by Blind14 — nominated by Blind14 20:29, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
•  Support Blind14 20:29, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
•  Support I supprted this picture on wikipedia and I support it here.Very intresting and unique picture. SOADLuver 20:45, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
•  Oppose -- Lycaon 20:46, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
•  Support a little bit grainy, but composition and colors are really great. -- Gorgo 21:28, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
•  Oppose — Noisy and the composition is totally wrong with the subject of interest faces almost at the edge, trying to escape from the frame. Indon 01:22, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

• If I would have put it in the middle it would have missed the smoke and the background. Blind14 05:11, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

• You can change your angle of view, leaving more space in front of the jet and still you gain the smoke and the background. I'm still opposing it, sorry. Indon 14:53, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

•  Comment Indon, that is precisely the merit of this photograph. Good composition, good diagonal, good sense of movement. And yes, the plane is taking off, the smoke is an integral part of the moment, etc., etc. I do not like the theme itself, thus I will not support it, but it is a good photograph.--Tomascastelazo 13:30, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

• Thank you Blind14 15:18, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
• The composition is not good at all. The plane is about to jump off the frame. There is too few space for it to breath. As a result, there's no sense of movement. The smoke and the jet are frozen in time. Indon 14:53, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

• Composition rules are just guidelines, not The Law written by God. History of photography is full of good compositions -like this one- that break those guidelines in some manner. Francisco M. Marzoa 11:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

• Still it does not work for me. I've seen many images like this with much better composition. This picture looks good only because of sunset silhouette, nothing more. Indon 18:22, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

•  Neutral very fine composition, but too dark and grainy Roger McLassus 15:52, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
•  Neutral I may support (or not at all...) if [grain|noise] is improved. I really like the composition and that sunset light is very good for me. Francisco M. Marzoa 18:12, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

How about now? Blind14 07:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

•  Oppose - ditto to Tomascastelazo - MPF 10:03, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
•  Support Pluke 12:36, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
•  Neutral I agree with Tomascastelazo norro 18:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
•  Oppose As too often with photographs from the US Army/Navy/Air Force/Whatever, this photograph does not show what it pretends to show. It is apparently meant to show a F-18, of which you see only a vague silhouette under an unfavourable angle ; and it show little puffs of white smoke, vapour or dirt... Another photograph wasted by lyrical ambitions at showing a grandiose setting, ending in a too dark photo not even suitable for a model box for a 12-year old boy. Rama 07:41, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
•  Support Alvesgaspar 16:48, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
•  OpposeNo reason for this to be featured if Version 3 is so much better =) .Vanillatea 23:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

•  Support a good photo, but I still think Version 3 is better. Vanillatea 01:36, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

•  Support Austin Hair 05:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
•  Support. It's a plane taking off, so to me having the subject at the far end of the photo facing away from us makes sense. howcheng {chat} 16:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
•  Support Spoken 23:31, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

10 support, 4 oppose, 3 neutral → qualified
(featured unless another version scores better) Roger McLassus 08:55, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
not featured Roger McLassus 06:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Version 2 (center) - not featured

• weak  Support Good picture but the one below is better. Vanillatea 01:39, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
• Nom.+ Support thank you dearly for the support Blind14 03:58, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
•  Support SOADLuver 00:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
•  Support Spoken 23:31, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

4 support, 0 oppose → not featured Roger McLassus 06:16, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Version 3 (right) - featured

• Strong  Support I really don't care about the encyclopedic value.It's a cool picture,and this version improves all of my minor dislikings.Who cares if it's "frozen in time" who cares if it has no "encyclopedic value" not like that matters really.This is an excellent image in my mind and deserves to be featured. SOADLuver 04:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Nom.+ Support per SOADLuver Blind14 07:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
•  Support I don't agree the picture is "frozen in time". I see movement, action and beauty. Alvesgaspar 07:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
•  Oppose too much editing artefacts. Lycaon 08:08, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
•  Neutral No substantial technical improvements. (I think they are not possible by editing the picture.) But I still like the composition and the atmosphere. Roger McLassus 13:05, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
•  Support Pluke 17:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
•  Support per SOADLuver -Vanillatea 23:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
•  Support Austin Hair 05:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
•  Oppose It's even worse than the first version. Since you performed noise filtering so badly to wipe out noisy grains, artefacts shown up. Indon 13:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
•  Oppose I liked this on en-WP but this version has too many artifacts. You need to more selectively filter the noise out. In the original photo and this version, compare the flight deck and the plane's body -- much cleaner in the original. howcheng {chat} 16:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
•  Support though i can not really see the difference between those versions i like the colours and scenery --SimONE 16:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
•  Support Spoken 23:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
•  Support Best. James F. (talk) 12:46, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

9 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → qualified
featured unless another version scores better) Roger McLassus 06:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
featured Roger McLassus 06:18, 20 October 2006 (UTC)