Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/The NOVA laser

The NOVA laser


This is an image of the massive NOVA laser at LLNL taken in 1984. It is used in the article on inertial confinement fusion. I remember this (rather historically important, I think) image being very widely published in the '80's popular scientific literature and then it seems like it virtually disappeared and can now only be found in very low quality images on the internet. So at work the other day, I scanned the image at very high resolution from the '84 LLNL annual laser program report, its grainy up close but the image is so big I think it is negligible when at normal size. Here's where I need some help, obviously the color is faded quite a bit and there is a seam running down the center where the pages meet. But the thing is, I do not see certain colors terribly well and can't really fix it myself. If someone could correct this in the image I would be extremely grateful!! For some idea of what the color SHOULD be like, I think the Roger Ressmeyer images in the Corbis archives and this PDF  from LLNL are likely more accurate.


 * Nominate and support. - Deglr6328 17:12, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Extremely boring picture, regardless of historical importance of the subject. Mark1 06:50, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. It's unique and definitely helps the article.  I don't think it's boring at all.  Aside from being a little fuzzy, its shows the size and impressiveness of the machine. --ScottyBoy900Q ∞  14:12, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Good that the image has been put on Wikipedia but not worthy of featured picture status. Oska 23:19, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I think the picture's contents are quite spectacular, but I oppose because of the quality of the picture. Enochlau 05:45, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutral. Good work in fixing up the picture. However, a seam down the middle? That's a bit of a problem. Enochlau 11:02, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. I've uploaded a modified version with increased contrast. Fredrik | talk 14:50, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * WOW COOL! looks great! Thank you so very much Fredrik! :oD --Deglr6328 01:26, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Wow, I can't believe how much better the modified image looks. It's a pity about the seam though the centre, but I suppose you'd need to be really good at photo editing to do anything about that. Raven4x4x 00:45, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * Support -- SWEET!! Someone worked a photoshop miracle on this pic!TomStar81 02:50, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
 * After a bit of deliberation, I'll support. The seam may work against it but it is barely noticable. Raven4x4x 12:42, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. It's just too... too... too something. I can't quite put my finger on it, but something is lacking. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 13:59, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. I like it. Compositionally, it's perfect. Everything is centered and aligned and carefully balanced. It's a formal photograph, and it works quite well as a formal photograph. Plus the subject matter is very impressive. Nohat 02:37, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I have uploaded a new vesion of this photo that removes the fluorescent yellow cast. I also edited out a couple scanning artifacts. I think the photo looks better now. Nohat 07:08, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Best revision yet. Many thanks.--Deglr6328 06:57, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Everyone knows break-even is impossible with these energy hogs. &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2005-09-4 17:31
 * ?? Scaled implosions show ignition and high gain will be easily achieved on NIF...--Deglr6328 01:34, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
 * As tests with the 4 constructed lasers have shown, they've already run into numerous insurmountable problems that will prevent the thing from even getting its feet off the ground. &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2005-09-6 00:36
 * Neutral. The composition sucks. Balance everything symmetrically and a photograph becomes boring. The brain skips over it because there's nothing happening. I like the little guy looking up at the big science. --Surgeonsmate 23:32, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Close, submit again soon with the cleaned up version to start with and i bet it'll pass. This link is Broken 21:50, 7 September 2005 (UTC)