Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/USMC War Memorial

USMC War Memorial

Reflections toned down a bit

The USMC War Memorial, which depicts Joe Rosenthal’s legendary photo Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima. I think this is an awesome shot, well detailed, and adds to the article USMC War Memorial.

Nominate and support - TomStar81 03:48, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The sky adds nicely to the situation being depicted, something you don't get when you're touring on a bright cloudless day. There are some exposure and noise problems that could be addressed. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-04-2 04:31
Weak support. I find the bright light reflected on either side of the monument fairly distracting. Can it be reduced? bcasterline t 05:10, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. As abaove, I bet that could be remedied though. psch e mp | talk 05:39, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support with condition. Love the unique coloring. Tone down the bright flashes and it would be FP-worthy. Covington 06:12, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not sure how to edit photos to achieve such an effect, so if someone could handle the touch up I would be grateful. TomStar81 06:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Tried to, but it is not easy to do undetectably - the reflections spread too far over the whole base. Support either one - nice lighting! --Janke | Talk 07:12, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support good lighting L e idi ot 09:45, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose it's a lovely pic, but i'm sick of every second image on here being nominated because it stirs some deep "patriotic" emotion. Having these images wind up on the main page sends the wrong signal about Wikipedia. —Pengo 13:00, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- So you like the picture, but you oppose because you alledge that it was nominated only because of "patriotic emotion"? I don't believe that is a valid reason to oppose a FPC so I respectfully suggest that the vote is not counted towards the total. chowells 13:28, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Pengo, you're free to nominate as many non-US photos as you like, and if they're good enough, they will be FPs. A shot of mine from such an incredibly obscure location as Hanko, Finland was. As simple as that. --Janke | Talk 13:44, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, poor composition - the statue's base is not centered in the photo and the bright flashes are problematic. —Cuivi é nen, Sunday, 2 April 2006 @ 13:58 (UTC)
Support nice -Ravedave 18:31, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Support I do like the picture, but agree the lighting takes away from it. I tried to remove it and touch things up as best as I could, but it still needs a lot of work. The white light still reflecting all across the wall along with the shadows on that wall still detract a bit too much. - Wdwic Pictures 06:31, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Great work. On close inspection, I can see that it's been modified -- especially the grass along the base on the left. But it's not obvious. Definitely the best version yet. bcasterline t 16:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - There are also cloning stamp marks just outside the right edge of the base. Remove these imperfections, and I'll support your version over my own! ;-) --Janke | Talk 17:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The version without the lights in it is missing the 'S' in "Semper" - and it's rather obvious as well. The original version and first edit are OK, but the light is distracting. If someone comes up with a version like the third one, but with the 'S' back in place and a simple blur tool run over the clone marks, I think it'll be good to go. ----WindRunner 20:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't believe I missed the "S." It was very faint so I guess I missed it. I uploaded a new version over it. I tried to get rid of some of the things mentioned. I also reduced the noise in the sky some. It still needs work though. Wdwic Pictures 14:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Nice picture, but if this isn't good enough for FP, neither is this one. (In short, a little lackluster in content.) zafiroblue05 | Talk 02:44, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I know what you mean; I voted support for the bridge and it still failed. I remember putting this photo through here and wonder why on earth it did not become featured. Sometimes its the things just outside your reach and control that mess everything up. If I were you I would consider rerunning the bridge, sometimes a second time submission gets through. Ya never know... TomStar81 07:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree about that B-2 nomination. I liked it and feel the reasons for opposition were a little aribitrary. I don't like the white balance at all on this image though. Another supporter below me exclaims "Just look at that sky!" but it is not that accurate looking. The human eye compensates far better for sodium lighting than a camera can! It looks artificial and badly balanced. :) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Just look at that sky! --Lewk_of_S e rthic _contrib ^talk 04:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I don't find this all that interesting. I also don't like the brown sky, nor the way that the left-hand side of the plinth is cut off. Stephen Turner (Talk) 12:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I don't like the perspective. The brown sky looks like severe light pollution in a big city. On a clearer night it would have been fine. Mikeo 11:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Poor white balance. Agree with previous comment that it would have looked better on a clear night, but light pollution CAN look OK if the photo is white balanced to a more neutral colour. Your eyes can do a better job of doing it automatically than a camera can, so you need to compensate manually, preferably before pressing the shutter, or before converting the RAW image if you're forward-thinking enough to use RAW. :) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:55, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Maybe if it appeared in an article about propaganda? --Philopedia 14:15, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 07:49, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]