Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/USS Constitution

USS Constitution edit

Version 1:USS Constitution under sail in Massachusetts Bay, July 21, 1997

Version 2: USS Constitution under sail in Massachusetts Bay, July 21, 1997

Edit 3, by Pharaoh Hound, removing the purple-and-green discolourations in the rigging, and slightly upping the contrast.

A photo of USS Constitution, the oldest commissioned warship afloat, underway for the first time in over century. There are two seperate version presented here: the first is the one that currently appears in the article, and the second is the High Resolution version I uploaded for the FPC run.

Nominate and Support TomStar81 21:28, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Version 1 is too small, and for now Version 2 is inelligable as it does not appear in an article. If the second one is added to an article. Even if those problems were fixed, I still oppose. The background is horrible. All those small boats just destroy the image. I haven't looked for other problems, but these are enough for me to oppose. say1988 21:39, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't appear in an article because I did not want to upload the the hi-res version over the one currently there. If the hi res one ends up promoted then the current image will be switched for that one. TomStar81 21:47, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: I happen to be one of the dots in "those small boats". I found the whole event to be an amazing display of support for this grand dame of the sea, and the picture reflects that. If you check my user page, you'll see that I might be biased though.--J Clear 02:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Terrible quality, look at the strange green and purple colours among the rigging - Adrian Pingstone 21:44, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Sigh, I never noticed that before, and it seems to be in the USN original. I think you just ruined one of my favorite images for me.--J Clear 02:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry to have been rather harsh in my "terrible" comment but FPC standards are very high - Adrian Pingstone 11:25, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - You were accurate, I just never noticed the artifacts before, now I can't miss them :-( --J Clear 01:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Those are only discolorations, and can be easily fixed. The main problem with the image is the blurriness / lack of detail. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-26 14:25
  - The discolourations are not "easily fixed", the green and purple blotches cover most of the rigging (below those two horizontal spars that seem to join up). It would take tens of hours to correct so is a valid reason why the pics are not acceptable as FP - Adrian Pingstone 19:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Tens of hours? Maybe an hour to get it looking really nice. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-28 00:56
    - I beg to differ on the discolourations being hard to fix. True, fixing them wouldn't be a stroll in the park, but it wouldn't take "tens of hours". However, I don't see a lot of point in fixing them beacause of the blurriness, which would be extremely hard (more like impossible) to fix. --Pharaoh Hound 14:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - There, I've done an edit to remove the purple and green discolourations. (by the way, it took me less than 30 minutes, not "tens of hours") --Pharaoh Hound 12:55, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Humble aplogies, I'll try to keep my mouth shut on subjects I'm not familiar with in future (like retouching) - Adrian Pingstone 16:38, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Do I detect the absence of an emoticon in the previous? Thanks Pharaoh, I'll be updating my background image at work in the AM, even if it doesn't qualify as FP. For those interested, my roughly reverse image here http://www.hazegray.org/features/sail200/sail57.jpg (not nearly as good quality, alas).--J Clear 01:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose poor quality and not big enough Childzy ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 20:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Additional Comments: There is some historical uniqueness to this shot, so give it some credit there. She hadn't sailed in over a hundred years, and may not again. I'm pretty sure the sailor who took it was in a helo, which is not the best camera platform. There is an 1124 px wide version available to meet the size requirement. I even dropped the Constitution's PAO an e-mail today to see if they can come up with an image without the green and purple artifacts (not holding my breath).--J Clear 01:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose all versions - not sharp. --P199 13:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Suppose you're on a Navy helicopter with a circa 1997, Navy issue digital camera. IIRC, there is supposed to be some quality "leeway" given to photos of historical significance. --J Clear 01:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - The historical significance of this image is low. Yes, it is of the boat's "first" voyage, but I'm sure everyone on those boats behind it were also taking pictures of it. Now, if this were an image of a one time event that there are few images of, like it's re-christening (it must've had one, right?) then the historical significance would be high. ~MDD4696 15:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Actually, the historical signifigance is quite high. I would suggest/recommend that you read the article before passing judgment on the photo, since the article does a much better job of explaining the rarity of the photo. TomStar81 21:42, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I've been on that boat dozens of times and the photo doesn't do it justice. Morganfitzp 03:16, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted Raven4x4x 07:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]