Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Sniper Scope

Sniper Scope
I found this just now, it apparently got placed on the page sniper while I was not looking, but I like it a lot. The view is unique, so I thought I would place it here. This comes from commons.


 * Nominate and Support TomStar81 (Talk) 04:21, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose Support &mdash; We don't have many (any?) other photos like this. Quite sharp and detailed in the scope. ♠ SG →Talk 07:45, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Eh, what was I smoking when I supported this image? ♠ SG →Talk 02:39, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Commment, what's with the sky? Why is it completely white? gren グレン 08:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'm tempted to support this, but is it a genuine photo or is it a mock-up? Stephen Turner (Talk) 09:04, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It looks to be a genuine photo, the second shot is of the same sniper team but from a different angle. As for the sky, it appears from this angle to be a mostly cloudy day, thats my take on it. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:08, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Support. Very interesting picture, but the white sky is somewhat distracting. Nautica Shad e  s  10:01, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Nice idea, but I believe it can be better executed. Alvesgaspar 10:04, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Alvesgaspar. There is a halo around the scope, you can best see it against the mountain. I would say the sky is blown, but since no one has said it I ask instead: is there something I'm missing? | A ndonic O Talk 10:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Support on the basis that the white sky be filled in with some neutral color. Otherwise very unique and interesting picture.  Jumping  cheese  [[Image:Misc-tpvgames.gif|18px]] Cont @  ct 10:12, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Great picture, shows how scopes work. Gphoto talk  15:11, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose - blown sky, and ridgeline to left of scope looks fake. Debivort 17:28, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I'm not sufficiently convinced that this isn't partially faked, or at least heavily manipulated. A few things look not quite right about it. Stephen Turner (Talk) 17:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Per above, this is a great idea but the execution leaves something to be desired.--HereToHelp 19:03, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose - The picture definately helps the sniping article, but it's a very unattractive image. --Iriseyes 17:14, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I'm sure it can't be impossible to get a better shot than this - until then we'll have to do without a sniperscope FP. It seems genuine to me, just not all that well-executed. --YFB ¿  02:25, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose We can do better. At the very least, I'd argue this doesn't really show how a scope works. We have no comparable non-scoped image there to see magnification. Staxringold talkcontribs 22:16, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It would be really, really hard to achieve that as the depth of field will have to be extremely large to have both the scope and non-scope part of the image in focus. It is currently taken in f/8 and even at f/16 both won't be in focus at the same time, and any smaller aperture will reduce the sharpness of the image by diffraction. Unless a composite image is made, I don't think it's technically feasible. -- antilived T 09:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Support per quality of picture. Sharkface217 23:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Raven4x4x 02:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)