Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Refueling Osprey

Refueling a V-22 Osprey

 * Reason:high quality and resolution, best picture of particular aircraft on wikipedia, helps add to the article
 * Articles this image appears in:V-22 Osprey
 * Creator:U.S. Navy photo by Chief Petty Officer Joe Kane


 * Support as nominator Drew.magoo (talk) 02:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Support - Gorgeous photo, the colours are amazing, the angle is breath taking, and just all-together awesome. SyBer WoLff  02:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Neutral original, Support Edit 1 I don't know what it is about the noise reduction, but I'm left with a very mixed feeling. Going from the original to the noise-reduced version, I see that it's a good job; I can't pick up any places where there was detail lost. But still, there's something unnatural about it being that smooth... If an image can feel like plastic, this one does. Other than that, a nice picture. Thegreenj 03:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Edit 1 looks good. I almost wish there had been a little more chroma NR, but that would be nitpicking. Thegreenj 20:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Support I didn't see the image as plasticy until I read the above, so it passes the NR issue in my opinion. de Bivort 04:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Stunning picture, and informative too. -Fcb981 (talk:contribs) 05:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose Original, Support Edit1 I found the noise reduction too heavy on the Original - it almost looks like a model. I went back in the history to the original upload and created an Edit1 with less heavy/selective NR to avoid the plastic look. Mfield (talk) 06:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Edit1 Unique and informative image, minor technical issues (eg. noise) are well controlled and understandable given circumstances. Capital photographer (talk) 07:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Oringinal It doesn't look plasticy to me at all. --Pteronura brasiliensis (talk) 16:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Support original, oppose edit Not sure why, but the edit looks noisier (worse) than the the "plasticky" original.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 20:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It is noisier; that is, it has less noise reduction. Thegreenj 20:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose original, support edit 1 I see the plastic look everybody is referring to in the first one. I don't mind a bit of noise in the second one, and it is a great image overall. TheOtherSiguy (talk) 20:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Support either Wow. Took me a while to realize this isnt CGI- amazing shot! Clegs (talk) 20:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I think the "fake", "plasticky" look has as much or more to do with the camera placement as anything else. Why nestle the camera among pebbles when trying to shoot an aircraft? The forced perspective there is what makes it look like a model. Matt Deres (talk) 10:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Would cropping out some of the bottom help? Spikebrennan (talk) 18:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. At least, it didn't help when I was fooling around with it; you need something down there to even the picture out vertically. I'm just puzzled why the photog decided to do that. Matt Deres (talk) 22:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd guess it was sat on the ground as it was a point and shoot and a 10 second exposure - the photographer probably had no tripod so he sat it on the floor and used a self timer? Mfield (talk) 00:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * CommentThe original's noise reduction is overdone and the edit is noticeably over-sharpened. Composition looks top-heavy to me. Can't support either, but content and capture are good enough. --mikaultalk 10:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Support I prefer the original, don't think it needs changing. ProfDEH (talk) 17:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Note the Original as nominated is not the actual original image. It was already edited with heavy noise reduction and uploaded over the original before the nom (which I am not sure such a destructive edit should ever have been). Edit1 is derived from the original rather than the Original. There is actually more change in the Original than Edit1. Confused yet? Mfield (talk) 17:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Support original, oppose edit 1. The hue in the edit looks even more artifical. Dorftrottel (complain) 22:43, May 7, 2008
 * What hue would that be? Mfield (talk) 22:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The greenish/blueish one, it takes away all of the warmth. Dorftrottel (vandalise) 11:39, May 8, 2008


 * Oppose a great image in many ways but I find the blurry people too distracting when viewed at full size. The visible crew members are specifically mentioned in the caption and I don't think it is a good illustration of them or what they are doing. Guest9999 (talk) 02:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Great image. Slightly prefer Edit1 over the original. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Physicistjedi (talk • contribs)
 * Support - Very impressive - looks almost fake, very strange &larr; &kappa;&epsilon;&eta;&eta;&epsilon;&part;&gamma; (shout at me) 15:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Support original This thing just looks badass, and this photo gratly demonstrates the awesome-ness. :)  crassic ![ talk ] 02:51, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Support Both I still can't figure out what that blue flash in the cockpit is. Spencer  T♦C 17:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - probably a flashlight one of the pilots is using to read a map. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 18:52, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Support - Wow. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 18:51, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

--jjron (talk) 08:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)