Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/PJ HALO drop

Pararescue HALO jump

 * Reason:Good action shot of HALO jump, Operation Enduring Freedom.
 * Articles this image appears in:Halo Jump, United States Air Force Pararescue
 * Creator:U.S. Air Force Photo/Staff Sgt. Jeremy T. Lock.


 * Support as nominator Kelly  hi! 03:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose Unbalanced composition, too dark, oversharpened (strong halos), motion blur - could go on... --Janke | Talk 06:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Agree with Janke, not the usual technical standard that we see and expect from the professional photographers of the US Forces. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 12:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment agree with the above re: technical concerns, except Janke's worry about composition. I think this is a marvelous composition for the subject, as the progression of divers off the edge of the image evokes a sense of falling into a void. If they had, by contrast been clustered at the top of the image, it would have conveyed hovering, which is less encyclopedic. M.2.c. de Bivort 14:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I still agree with Janke. When I look at the image, I can't help but wish that the jumpers were closer to the top of the frame, showing more of where they were falling to. I'm not suggesting clustering at the top though - just a slight shift of perspective, with around the same space currently visible at the top at the bottom instead. It would be only a slight difference, but I think it would do wonders for the composition, in the same way that it is generally preferable in composition to provide more space on the front side of a person/animal/movement because subconsciously, you want to see what they see or where they're going. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 16:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Janke. The composition of a parachute jump image would definitely be better with free space below to fall into rather than above the subjects. Mfield (talk) 16:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose It's a decent representation of a HALO jump, but the top guy is upside down and there's a bit of motion blur.  crassic ![ talk ] 02:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose It should have been cut to make a better composition as per Janke/Diliff, but there would still be a problem with the cloud background. The pattern seems to replicate the pattern of the jumpers which ought to work, but unfortunately in this case it seems to confuse rather than complement. Motmit (talk) 16:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose...minorly blurry, and per Janke. Spencer  T♦C 22:38, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

. --John254 02:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)