Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Tug boat

New York Harbor Tug boat

 * Reason:Its about as illustrative a picture of tugboat as I can think of. Its technically well executed with a tight composition, good sharpness, and good light. It was taken in the late afternoon and I think it does a good job of drawing the reader in...
 * Articles this image appears in:Boat, Tug boat
 * Creator:User:Fcb981


 * Support as nominator Fcb981 (talk:contribs) 00:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Support either, with a slight preference to original. I just love the heat-smudged horizon behind the smokestacks!  - Enuja (talk) 05:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Support either, with slight preference for the number 2.--ragesoss (talk) 23:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose both Just not up to quality standards. Need sharpening I think. Dengero (talk) 10:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * MER-C, if you happen to close this nom, I think you should take into account that the above voter called Diliff's big ben picture small and noisy when to my fairly well trained eye there is no visible noise. Aside, this image has been downsampled from a damn sharp original size and was processed for extra sharpness. There is no more available sharpness at this image size. -Fcb981 (talk:contribs) 06:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I have disregarded the Big Ben picture comment as a mistake. I stand strong this picture just isn't FP quality. Dengero (talk) 07:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Could you elaborate a bit? In what way is it not up to FP standards? Sharpness? Because it is as I said above down-sampled and sharpened and processed for optimum detail. All you said is that it could use sharpening. Adding extra sharpening would start to make halos become visible. -Fcb981 (talk:contribs) 15:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Let's take the original as example. Spare the bit where the smoke fuzzes out the background (this can't be changed due to physics) The rest of the background is all fuzzy-ish. If that doesn't make a point (since we're talking about the tug boat), then like Mikespenard says, everything is so dull. Dengero (talk) 00:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, the fact that you think the colors are dull is valid enough IMO. While I don't share that view, one can point that out. Actually, the fact that the rest of the background is "fuzzy" is also, in part, due to physics. See, the image was shot at... f/5.6 or f/6.3 or something and with a relatively long focal length lens somewhere between 150-300mm because of this. There is a limited DOF (Depth of field) Many people (myself included) find the background separation afforded by limited DOF appealing and desirable. If you take a look at Bokeh you'll see some examples. Cheers -Fcb981 (talk:contribs) 04:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Support both. Juliancolton The storm still blows...  23:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose to many dull tones. Then again its a tugboat operating in a dirty harbor near a dirty city.--Mike Spenard (talk) 06:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Support either. A much more intriguing photo of a tugboat than I thought possible. Mangostar (talk) 23:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. A pretty good photo of a tugboat. Could probably be improved on by showing it tugging a much larger boat, but as for the boat itself, I have no complaints. Sharpness is fine, the background is about as in focus as you could reasonably expect, as per Fcb981's explanation above, and is incidental to the image, not critical. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 14:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

MER-C 08:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)