Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Normandy Supply

Normandy Supply

 * Reason:Iconic, Irreplicable, Represents one of the biggest military actions in history, large image size.
 * Articles this image appears in:World War II, 1944, Battle of Normandy, Barrage balloon, Chronology of World War II
 * Creator:US Navy


 * Support as nominator &mdash; Witty lama 07:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Support, the technical problems are obvious, but I really like this... later at the beach landing when they are unloading equipment (and the barrage balloons are pretty cool). I think it could use a nicer summary. gren グレン 08:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Support original and edit 2 Very historic, capturing the moment in an truly irriplacible irreplaceable way. Thegreenj 02:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC) I really ought to check my spelling more carefully! Thegreenj 21:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Support per above.--Uberlemur 15:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Support both (With preference for the edit) - I wish that the picture was more clean and clear and it also has a bad tilt. But it's obviously huge (the army)! Amazing shot. --Arad 00:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Support- Does a rather good job at showing the scale of the operation. --Lewk_of_S e rthic contrib talk 13:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - is there some guideline advising against retouching of historical images which I might be unaware of? This one, like a number of others I've seen, has an inordinate amount of dust and scratches which I'd be happy to clean up.. I've heard arguments in the past warning against the potential for lost 'siginifcant detail' if the retouch was less than respectful, that's all. For example, there might be a temptation to correct the skewed horizon, but the crop would lose detail at the margins. Just wondered; offer stands. mikaultalk 12:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You can always give it a try. Why not. Make your edit, and we vote on it. --Arad 15:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I've added a rough rotate and crop for comparison. If people prefer it someone might make a better attempt! Pstuart84 Talk 23:23, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm personally against the editing of historical photos (beyond cleaning up the image) - and this includes rotation and colour adjustment. There are arguments that this could lose elements, or that it changes the copyright status, but I say that it simply doesn't feel as "true" a picture anymore. It becomes reconstruction rather than just restoration. Witty lama 06:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I agree. This crop loses quite a bit of detail around the edges and on an image with so mcuh detail, we simply have to live with some idiosyncrasies. I've downloaded it to retouch, which I hope to get done today sometime. mikaultalk 06:53, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Here it is (Edit 2) I've been super-sensitive to what *might* be original detail and have left most stuff which (I believe) was on the original print, like chemical burns etc. mikaultalk 13:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Support edit 2, reasons above. mikaultalk 13:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, your edit (Edit 2) looks pretty damn good! I Support no.2 as nominator. Witty lama 14:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Great picture, very encyclopedic. The second edit is one fine job!201.253.94.206 14:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

--KFP (talk | contribs) 09:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)