Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Boeing 777

Boeing 777
Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2011 at 04:49:59 (UTC)
 * Reason:It is off aviation historical significance, with high resolution, no image noise, and is not too cropped.
 * Articles in which this image appears:Boeing 777
 * FP category for this image:Featured pictures/Vehicles/Air
 * Creator:Boeing Dreamscape (Flickr username) Uploaded onto Commons by Sp33dyphil.


 * Support as nominator -- Sp33dyphil (Talk) (Contributions)(I love Wikipedia!) 04:49, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm not ready to vote on this yet but just wondering is it my monitor or is this picture a bit dark? for above cloud level I would have expected a little more brightness... Also  really  don't like the "(probably)" bit in the description... Should really be a fact or not included I would have thought...  gaz hiley .co.uk  11:21, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm 99% sure it's involved in flight testing. Sp33dyphil  (Talk) (Contributions)(I love Wikipedia!) 21:04, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm still not keen on the "probably" bit being there... Anyone else have any thoughts on whether that should be removed? gaz hiley .co.uk  11:22, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment I could see myself supporting this, but as gazhiley noted, it ought to be brighter. I also don’t see the point of so much cloud below the plane (and to a lesser extent, above the plane); more zoom could do this picture proud. I note that the vast majority of public-domain pictures are ground-based ones. Due to FAA rules regarding separation, air-to-air shots like this are typically owned by airlines and manufacturers of the planes. This is a rare catch. With some tweaks, I think it could be a fine FP. Greg L (talk) 23:18, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Alt I made the Alt shown here. I cropped it, shoved around the brightness & contrast to extend the histogram, moved the midpoint of the histogram to brighten the ground, took a touch off the saturation, and smoothed out the ground and clouds, which had a lot of JPEG artifacts. As I noted above, the vast majority of public-domain pictures are ground-based ones. Due to FAA rules regarding separation, air-to-air shots like this are typically owned by airlines and manufacturers of the planes. An air-to-air like this is a rare catch. Greg L (talk) 23:40, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the improvement. I'm not a really good expert at photography, but I see that the picture (original and alt) have really important aviation significance, so I though, with some retouching, it should be FP. Sp33dyphil  (Talk) (Contributions)(I love Wikipedia!) 01:02, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You are most welcome. Look at the original’s clouds in full zoom and then look at the clouds in the Alt. I didn’t even touch the JPEG artifacts on the plane itself. Yet, that simple little trick of addressing it in the clouds and the purple valley above and behind the plane really improved the image. Greg L (talk) 02:04, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak Support Alt this is indeed a rare catch, especially since the aircraft is in the original Boeing livery. However, the image quality is quite mediocre with JPEG artifacts, image noise (contrary to the nominator's claim, I see quite some image noise) and lack of sharpness arising from the JPEG artifacts. Purpy Pupple (talk) 00:10, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * oppose both The clouds are in general nice, but white coluds on the white airplane doesn't work. Also small and for that too much quality issues, see Purpy Pupple. --kaʁstn 17:21, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

--Makeemlighter (talk) 22:10, 5 February 2011 (UTC)