Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Eileen Collins

Eileen Collins
Voting period ends on 29 Oct 2019  at 08:54:35 (UTC)
 * Reason:Eileen Collins became the first woman to command a Space Shuttle and the second to command any space mission on STS-93 which launched on 23 July 1999. She is pictured here on the first day of flight at the commander's station.
 * Articles in which this image appears:Eileen Collins, STS-93, Women in Aviation International Pioneer Hall of Fame
 * FP category for this image:Featured pictures/People/Science and engineering
 * Creator:NASA


 * Support as nominator – --- Coffee  and crumbs  08:54, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - strong EV, not frequently seen documentation here at FPC. MER-C 09:51, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Very cluttered. Orange thing is distracting. Should be more tightly framed. – Sca (talk) 13:49, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
 * This is not Commons... ;-) --Janke | Talk 18:14, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support – Bammesk (talk) 16:11, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Super-crowded, but it's an action shot, and I can accept that as part of the EV of her doing something notable for the first time. Colour balance typical of 90s film. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.1% of all FPs 01:25, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * FYI. I have slightly turned down red and green to reduce yellowing. (before after) --- Coffee  and crumbs  02:01, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support "before", but oppose "after" version; the paper and grey instrument panel are blueish in the edited version - check RGB pixel values! Also, the original color is typical of early digital cameras, IMO we shouldn't mess with that... PS: Can't get the original to display, someone please fix, thanks! --Janke | Talk 18:07, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * This isn't film - it's shot with an early, 6 Mpix Kodak DCS460 digtal camera. --Janke | Talk 11:35, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The Kodak camera probably exposed film and then scanned it internally :-) It would have been an awesome invention Bammesk (talk) 13:21, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Impressive! It's clearly imitating 90s film. though: it has that kind of pseudo-Technicolor-colour balance, which is very 90s. It's not exactly natural, but I'm not going to vote against a historical shot because it uses historical colour balance. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.1% of all FPs 15:38, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Impressive indeed! But in 1995, the camera cost US$35,600! See: Kodak_DCS_400_series - My own Canon bought in 2000 for about $2000 only had a 2 Mpix sensor... back then, the color balance was very similar to this, and the other digital cameras at the time. Now, they all are significantly better; photos taken with my current 24 Mpix, $1000 Canon are well-nigh perfect in that respect. Better Bayer filters, perchance? --Janke | Talk 17:43, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Perhaps they were actively trying to imitate film of the time, to make the transition easier? Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.1% of all FPs 21:17, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I doubt that - I think they just did the best they could at the time... --Janke | Talk 07:16, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I have reverted back to the original. I should have uploaded edited version as a new file anyway. --- Coffee  and crumbs  18:53, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. I struck the now unnecessary text in my support above. --Janke | Talk 07:22, 21 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Support Very high EV, which overcomes marginal byte count. Good quality and sharpness; clutter adds to the 'you-are-there' impact. DonFB (talk) 04:12, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. The high EV of this in-action shot makes up for cluttered composition. I don't have a strong preference between the before and after versions but the comment that the color balance is "typical of early digital cameras" tips me towards the untweaked colors. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:45, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Geoffroi  01:43, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

--Armbrust The Homunculus 10:22, 29 October 2019 (UTC)