Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Grumman Bearcat

Grumman Bearcat

Reason: Clear high quality image, sharp focus,; For clarity, original uploaded version discussed at start is here
Articles this image appears in: Grumman Bearcat
Creator: User:Chowells

Support as nominator --chowells (talk) 22:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Edit 1 The reason for the weak being that the light in the clouds leaves the image lacking pop. Mfield (talk) 22:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oooh, that's an excellent edit. Thanks. I clearly overcooked my postprocessing in Lightroom. Agree re the clouds - the weather has been awful this summer for airshows. I was interested about the conversion to sRGB - it looks like Lightroom exports AdobeRGB by default. Does this change have much practical benefit, or why did you do it? Thanks :) chowells (talk) 22:48, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well the web is pretty much universally sRGB as only Safari and Firefox 3 support color profiling. Leaving it in AdobeRGB will therefore result in the majority of viewers seeing a washed out, color shifted version in their (probably IE) browser. The degree it gets affected depends on the specific image and the colors used in it. This image really wouldn't benefit from the extended gamut of AdobeRGB anyway. It's best to convert to sRGB before uploading for a majority web based project like Commons. I actually rarely use AdobeRGB unless I have a very specific output and color range in mind, like printing large landscapes with more greens and cyans. Here's a handy link detailing the differences in gamut [1] Mfield (talk) 22:56, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for the explanation. As I can see that the original was so poor, I've overwritten it with something more like yours created directly from the RAW in lightroom. Hope that's ok, cheers. chowells (talk) 23:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support edit Very good picture! Clegs (talk) 15:47, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not that great, lighting could be better. It's not a very interesting photo, certainly not one of wikipedia's best. Looks okay for the article, but doesn't add much to the encyclopedic value. Greener Cactus (talk) 20:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not very interesting. Maybe to someone who doesn't know anything about planes. As a WW2 fighter plane buff, this is one of the most intersting FPs to come through in a long time. As to not being encyclopedic, what would make it encyclopedic? It doesn't get much better than this: a modern, perfect quality photo of a 65 year old plane restored to look like it's just rolled off the assembly line, and in addition to the beautiful aesthetics, still flying. Clegs (talk) 00:33, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ~~Shadows on the plane ruin this photo. I agree with Greener Cactus; it's boring and looks like a toy plane. sorry..~~ Intothewoods29 (talk) 23:10, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Shadows? Are we looking at the same plane? All I see are cloud reflections. Those are normal when a plane is flying. As far as looking like a toy plane, I don't see where you pull that from. What do you want? A label saying THIS IS A REAL PLANE? It's perfectly sharp, crystal clear, and the plane is perfectly restored, right down to the mirror finish on the blue paint. Clegs (talk) 00:30, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - haha okay fine I guess I shoulda figured that out about the shadows... LOL. I personally don't think it's one of WP's finest, but that's just me.
    - Fair enough :-) Clegs (talk) 02:26, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support of Edit 1 Was really on the fence with this one. I'm artistically kind of opposed to the plain background and lighting (compared to this pic of a P-38, whose cirrus clouds really add to the image, IMO, or to the Spitfire also by Chowells, which is nicely lit and has a better angle of the pilot). But this is for the encyclopedia, and it shows great detail of a rare bird in its natural habitat (the sky). That leads me to support. BTW, I'm still preferring Mfield's edit which to me has nicer contrast. Fletcher (talk) 14:25, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support edit 1 per Cleg's arguments. Spencer^T♦^C 18:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support edit 1 It's really the classic picture postcard airplane picture. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 15:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. It's a very nice image, aesthetically speaking. However, the quality in the dark underside of the plane is very poor, so much so that barely any detail is visible. Considering the amount of high quality airplane FPs we have, this one just doesn't deserve it. It has thumbnail appeal, but not much past that. NauticaShad es 02:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus MER-C 10:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]