Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Apollo 17 The Last Moon Shot Edit1.jpg

Apollo 17
I felt this photo came out very nice in terms of contrast, with the orange sky and nice lighting, and thought I'd put it up for consideration.

Promoted Image:Apollo 17 The Last Moon Shot Edit1.jpg Jtkiefer T  22:32, 22 December 2005 (UTC) 
 * Nominate. Sarge Baldy 11:12, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. The image has a lot of artifacts. I've spent some time editing it and smoothed out some of its wrinkles. The only thing I'm not entirely happy about is the posterization in the sky. This is not due to my editing per-se but rather the JPEG compression in photoshop - the posterization does not occur in the image I've been working on until the time of saving to JPEG format. I've saved the file as a PNG file (lossless) here so you can see how it is SUPPOSED to look but obviously it is larger than it needs to be as a PNG and not the ideal format for a photo. If anyone else can take that copy and save it as a JPEG without posterization in the sky, that would be appreciated, but I think my copy is otherwise a marked improvement over the original. Diliff   | (Talk)   (Contribs) 18:12, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment I get the impression the rocket is leaning to the right - Adrian Pingstone 18:17, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Why don't you measure it then? :) Its hard to be sure since the sides slope towards the point, but if it is, it couldn't be more of a shift than 1-2 pixels from top to bottom. Often a perceived lean is an optical illusion. The only way to be sure is to be objective and measure it. I just did that and couldn't find any substantial lean. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 19:55, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I can't pick any difference between your jpeg and PNG Diliff. This is about the third or fourth time people have made changes that I just cannot see at all. And I mean not at all. Why is it that other people can and I can't? Whatever the reason, I do think it's an improvement over the original, and I will support Diliff's version. Raven4x4x 05:06, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Raven, my guess re the reason you can't see the difference is that your monitor isn't calibrated particularly well. Try this calibration |chart. Ideally, you should be able to differentiate all the graduations from A to Z, but most typical monitors can't at either extreme, particularly in the shadows. Or there is this page too. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 02:08, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutral &mdash; it's a great picture, but I'm afraid that the spotlights on the left distract too much. Also, it may just be a figment of my imagination, but I also get the feeling that the rocket is leaning right... Flcelloguy (A note? ) 19:05, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * ( + ) Support Original Version. It doesn't seem to suffer much from artifacts to me, and Diliff's version seems to loose a lot of detail. For instance the tip of the shuttle seems fade out. --Fir0002 23:09, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Look at the sky in the original version, and the detail around the rocket. There are plenty of artifacts. I agree that the tip is faded and that must be due to me accidently running over it when I was touching it up, but aside from that, where else does it look like detail is missing? I don't think there is anything much else visible. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 02:37, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry but I can't see any artefacts worth worrying over. Comparing the two side by side the fringes of the original look sharp and consequently less smooth, but that's about it. Your edit seems to have mad the spotlights in the bottom LH corner become more faded as well. --Fir0002 04:04, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, I can't speak for everyone but I do certainly see them and I suspect others do too. The sky is not at all smooth - it has horizontal and vertical lines running through it, which I have for the most part removed. If you really don't see them, then try having a look at the levels in photoshop and move the white point (the far right slider) towards the left and you'll enhance the shadow detail (brighten it) and the artifacts will pop out at you. Heres one I prepared earlier ;). Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 05:11, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah OK, but the thing is, as I can't see the artefacts without using severe level adjustment I can't see how a reomved version is better. And as mentioned above it has less detail. --Fir0002 06:53, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * If you can't see it, then perhaps you should calibrate your monitor, as per my comments with Raven above. They are very obvious to me without any levels adjustments at all, and obvious to others too, it seems, since they are favouring my edit. Also, I don't think I have removed any detail. Can you give me an example? If anything, my version appears slightly sharper to me. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 18:37, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Horizontal lines.. um you mean the wires which you blured into oblivion all but one? .. Odd that we not require being factually inaccurate to feature a picture on wikipedia. --Gmaxwell 06:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually I was referring to artifacts presumably introduced by digitising the original photo. Can you not see them either? I agree that there is a slight loss of clarity in /part/ of the wires attached to it, but I didn't delibrately blur it - that was an unfortunate byproduct of the noise removal algorithm that I ran the image through, but it isn't as though you cannot see the wires at all, and it isn't as though the edit makes the image factually inaccurate any more than extreme artifacts in the original. I wasn't trying to say my edit was perfect, - far from it - but it certainly makes it more viewable and doesn't detract significantly in my opinion. If you disagree, thats fine, but less snide comments would be appreciated if you're not going to vote. ;) Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 17:12, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Read Diliff's words above. I also can't find any lean when I try to measure it. Raven4x4x 23:45, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Support Diliff's edit, although it would be good if someone can put it back into JPEG as mentioned. Enochlau 00:53, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Support Diliff's version. Glaurung 08:32, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutral Nice but spotlights and over-saturation of the rocket detract from it. - JustinWick 01:02, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Support Very striking --rogerd 04:45, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Support Diliff's edit. Very illustrative and eye-catching. -- Marcika 03:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Support Image 2. The lighting is absolutely breathtaking in this image. One of the best Apollo shots I've seen. D e nni &#9775;  02:52, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Support, the lighting makes it a great picture. Tito xd (?!? - did you read this?) 21:00, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Support, fantastic David D. (Talk) 01:21, 16 December 2005 (UTC)