Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/B-2 Bomber Reloaded

B-2 Spirit Stealth Bomber
I still think this picture has what it takes to be featured. Last time it was nominated the main issues were the small size of the picture, the odd angle of the plane, the person in the picture, the odd coloring of the plane and its ability to blend into the background. This version of the photo is supersized, and has been rotated to fix the slight slant of the plane. The guy is still in the picture, but there are guys in this featured picture too, and it still made the cut. As for the fact that the plane seems to blend into the background... its a stealth bomber. Thats the whole point of having the plane shaped and colored in this particular way. It makes the plane unique, and from my perspect the plane should be praised for this ability and not put down for it.


 * Nominate and Support -- I said it before, and I'll say it again: It seems that everyone has a picture of the B-2 or F-117 flying... in the blue sky... at high noon... in plain sight. Its just so...depressing. This picture, on the other hand, shows what the B-2 was really built for: Stealth. Were it not for the eriely cool runway lights playing off the B-2's belly the craft would be practically invisible. That makes this shot worthy enough, in my opinion, to be a featured picture. TomStar81 03:05, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I stand by my comments at the previous nomination. Stealth aircraft aren't unique because they're painted black; it's because they're shaped to avoid radar detection.  In this head-on, poorly-lit night shot, you can't see the shape at all. &mdash;Cryptic (talk) 03:41, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
 * A fisheye lens was used ? Ericd 17:58, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. Although I respect their greater expertise in photography, I don't concur with some of the opposers in the previous nom. The man standing there doesn't detract from it, IMHO; he's a nice break away point from what might otherwise be a monotonous composition. The slant was easily corrected. The composition itself, the perspective, the night-time shot, all this adds to the picture in my view, because it showcases the nature of the beast. I'd support this.— enceph alon  02:20, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I also disagree with previous assertions that the man takes away from photograph. I think he gives a great sense of scale, and I second Encephalon's thoughts.  CapeCodEph 04:08, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I think this a good photo. But I'm quite sure the perscpective is distorted by the use of a fisheye lens. IMO it's a step too far in "special effects" for an encyclopedia. Ericd 21:24, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Forgive me for my ignorance on the matter, but what exactly is a "fisheye lense"? And how does that relate to this picture? TomStar81 02:02, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
 * :o] --Deglr6328 02:55, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I suppose it could have been taken with a fisheye lense; however, I'm not sure that the lense &mdash;if it was used&mdash; is responsible for distorting the plane. According to the History Channel, Secret Weapons of the Cold War, various studies on stealth technology, and an ex-soviet mathamatical theory the distortions of the plane could easily be explained as having been engineered into the bomber to help make it stealthy. With all do respect to your position the US Government still maintains a tight leash on its stealth fighters and bombers, so jumping directly to the conclusion that the lense used is somehow distorting the picture may not be factually true. TomStar81 04:50, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah Right, if the stealth bomber's technology is even able to distort the ground in front of it, then I am really impressed by its technology! The picture is clearly taken by a fisheye lens as can be seen on the horribly distorted straight lines in the foreground's concrete. Fisheye lenses are OK as long as there aren't any visible straight lines, but on that picture it is very disturbing. Glaurung 06:30, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
 *  Oppose Neutral for original version. I am personally not fond of fisheye effect, and I prefer the defished version, which I support. Glaurung 09:53, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I never said anything about the camera distorting the runway, only about the plane; furthermore if your only reason for opposing the picture are the distorted runway lines I have to ask why the (this parted censored) you bothered editing the page in the first place. TomStar81 07:14, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Calm down please. Fisheye effect affects the whole picture, the runway and the plane, but is more visible on the runway straight lines. You can not consider the plane only. Your FPC nomination concerns the whole picture. I dont like to see features I expect to be straight being completely bent. Glaurung 08:23, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I don't mind the fisheye lens, or the person in the photo, I just wish the bomber itself was more clearly defined and contrasted from the background. Raven4x4x 06:59, 29 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I DEMAND AN EXPLANATION FOR THIS FISHEYE LENS BULLSH * T! It never mattered to anybody eight weeks ago that the photo may have been taken with a fisheye lense and now all of sudden its an internation incident. What changed in eight weeks, huh? You Answer me that! TomStar81 07:17, 29 September 2005 (UTC)


 * What changed is that I saw the pictures and I noticed than the runway lines are distorded, nothing else. Ericd 07:55, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
 * What also changed was that different people are commenting this time, people with different opinions to last time. Personally I don't care about the lens, I'd just love to see the bomber itself more clearly. 144.137.226.238 11:01, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Oops, that was me. I'm sure I was logged in. Obviously not. Raven4x4x 11:07, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
 * This page can be a bit rough. To get through, a pic usually doesn't just have to be a great pic, it has to be seen to be an important contribution to an article, and I guess the problem with this one is that (a) not enough of the plane is visible and (b) the fisheye is an intended distortion. If it fails here, it might well do better as an FPC on commons.  That said, I think the photographer here knew what he was doing and the pic isn't only really attractive, it does a good job of illustrating an aspect of the plane's stealth - the face it presents to an enemy radar.  There are several other, less striking, pics in the article showing more surface detail. Support ~ Veledan • Talk + new 23:24, 29 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Support. My opinion hasn't changed. Other people are just cruel. Enochlau 23:28, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks, folks. I needed to here that. It makes me feel a little bit better. I suppose I owe you an apology for exploding like that to. Understand that I'm not a photographer, and because of that I feel left out over all this fisheye lense buisness. Worse, because I don't really understand it I feel like the photo is being discriminated against for something beyond my control. It nerve-racking to know that something your suppose to be helping is beyond your help. TomStar81 01:27, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Support, the photograph is superb. Еdit 01:29, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 * FIrst off I ave little photographic knowledge and have no idea what a fisheye lens is so I cannot oppose based on that.Though a new reason for opposition could come up, maybe people didn't notice that because they were focusing on other things or as stated before, new people. I still have to oppose though. I hate the lighting, the colouring just seems weird. Also some people like the person there, but for me it is the second thing to see, after the strut for the front landing gear where it is really bright, before i look at the plane itself. Your comment about the other featured picture, I would have opposed that if given the chance. It also seems to show the plane at a weird angle. And I am not just being "cruel".say1988 02:17, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I didn't vote when this last came up just because I didn't feel like getting into an argument, but I have to say this is one of the coolest B2 pictures i've ever seen anywhere. I still have to oppose though. I don't like the huge foreground and the guy drives me crazy. When I look at the picture, I can't stop looking at that man instead of the plane.  I wish he was more to the side so he could be cropped out, he just drives me crazy though.  Those are my only complaints.  And you're right TomStar81, it is something out of your control, that doesn't change the fact though that there's an incredibly annoying little man that ruins the whole picture. --ScottyBoy900Q ∞  03:33, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Photo is colorless and taken from weird angle. JediMaster16 10:02, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment : I've uploaded a processed image with correction of the fisheye effect. It is still not perfect, but this shows that distortion can be corrected. Glaurung 09:54, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Interesting. Good work. I'm more than happy to support the edited version too. Enochlau 13:40, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
 * This does mean that you're soon going to plop down a vote to support, right? Right? ;) Oh, and great work on the "de-fisheyeing". I'm supporting both.— enceph alon  08:14, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Yep, after carefully reading all the arguments, I think there is no reason not to support the picture. Except for the distortion that was bothering me, I think the picture is great Glaurung 09:53, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This is the first time that I've ever looked at the picture voting process in Wik.  Seems to me that the one universal requirement is that a picture (which after all does not require one to undergo lengthy analysis in order to have strong feelings) must acheive a consensus, almost upon first glance.  There truly are a lot of neat, even unique qualities to this picture.  But it obviously doesn't "do it" for most people here.  Am I wrong in how I'm seeing this situation?  Unschool 18:11, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The main rule is that you vote based on the above stated criteria, namely does the picture add signifigantly to the article, or articles, in which it resides. Some vote on what they feel, not what the community feels. Other people with a more photographic background vote on even higher criteria, as evidenced by Ericd when he oberved that a fisheye lense was used in this case. Normally one would only oppose if there was something wrong with the picture or the lisence; however, since featured pictures should make one think "wow!" when first seen there are some other considerations as well. The community consesus is required to promote a picture to featured status, but please don't vote on what the community thinks. You're an individual, I trust you can think for youself. Come up with your own critera and use it to measure the worth of a photograph. TomStar81 20:56, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, please vote on individual grounds, not on how others have voted. Otherwise, why don't we just take the first 5 votes and go home? Enochlau 23:04, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
 * On a related note: Unschool, could I ask you either to change your vote or to give a specific reason for opposing? In the case of the former, you need not nessicarily vote support, but the way your text is phrased at the moment sounds more a like a "comment" or a "neutral". In the case of the latter, a solid reason for opposing (ie: to dark, the person, the odd lines, etc) would help firm up the oppose vote some. TomStar81 04:01, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutral. The matter of opinions reflected on this page is a matter if they look at the picture and say: "WOW! What a great picture!"  This picture is interesting, but it does not particularly excite me in any way. --AllyUnion (talk) 21:12, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. Looking over the comments on my "vote", I can see that I did not make myself clear. It's not that I was voting "no" because the group was voting no.  Like others have stated, to be a featured picture one would think that the picture causes a "Wow" reaction, drawing one to the article.  I was merely making the observation that almost no one making comments seems to be super-excited about the picture, and that perhaps it was a lost cause.   Now, as to my own feelings about it?  In its small representation on this page, frankly, I find it unimpressive.  However, when linking up to the high resolution full-size picture, I do find it quite interesting.
 * I suspect that most of us who choose to spend time not only writing and editing articles on the Wik, but even commenting on these articles (and pictures), are, by and large, a group of rather large-egoed individuals. At least, I am.  While I will always be humble in the face of factual information that contradicts a previously-held position of mine, when it comes to matters of opinion, I do not need nor desire to follow others.  Still, having the ability to have an independent opinion does not always mean that one will have an opinion.  On this particular picture, I am ambivalent, except to say that I prefer the non-fisheyed version.  Unschool 06:27, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

This has been a heavily contested nomination, but with the lack of consensus I cannot promote the image. I know the fisheye lens has been removed, but it also seems to me that the majority of the oppose votes were due to the man, the angle or the colouring, not the fisheye lens. Raven4x4x 12:11, 11 October 2005 (UTC) 
 * I can see the merits of your argument. In fact, looking at that picture once again, WOW, this is fantastic, I love this photo. Enochlau 14:24, 2 October 2005 (UTC) (I am being facetious, but the support votes (at least mine) here supported last time, and the excitement has... perhaps worn off? In any case, it's a subdued picture, and that's where it's beauty lies, so maybe that explains the lack of "wows" as well. Enochlau 14:26, 2 October 2005 (UTC))
 * Support - For what it's worth this late in the voting, I too believe the photo is well done, interesting (not distracting or misleading) in its coloration and contrast, and possesses a "Wow" factor at first glance deserving of FP status. CapeCodEph 08:13, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose. As an Aerospace engineer in training, I can say that this image does not do any justice to the B-2 Spirit bomber. The beauty of the plane is its shape, especially when looked from the top, because of the "flat diamond" design that Skunkworks designed for the F-117 Nighthawk. The angle from which this picture is taken is pretty unflattering, because it does not show any of its special features. The fact that it was a fisheye does not have anything to do with it, it's just a bad picture. If you want a nice picture, nominate Image:Usaf.b2.spirit.750pix.jpg. Tito xd (?!?) 06:01, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Just for organizational purposes...Votes in Support:8, Oppose:7, Neutral:3 (As of 03:17, 6 October 2005 (UTC))
 * Oppose. This is a bad photograph, and it does nothing to illustrate what makes the B-2 remarkable. This plane is not built to "blend into the background" (as suggested in the nomination), but to be invisible to radar . This has to do with the shape of the plane, which is not even shown in this badly lit photograph from an awkward angle. gisle h. 15:06, 10 October 2005 (UTC)