Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:First flight3.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:First flight3.jpg, featured[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jan 2010 at 21:22:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info created by Wilbur and Orville Wright - uploaded by Durova - nominated by Durova. Restored from File:Wrightflyer highres.jpg by Durova. -- Durova (talk) 21:22, 27 December 2009 (UTC)- Wright Brothers' first airplane flight. This nomination is a reedit of File:First flight2.jpg. The new version brings better contrast in the shadows for a clearer view of body positions and machinery. Durova (talk) 21:22, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Support -- Durova (talk) 21:22, 27 December 2009 (UTC)- Support - Thanks. Takabeg (talk) 08:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support Interesting and effective image. --Herby talk thyme 10:12, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support - Extremely high value. --MattiPaavola (talk) 12:04, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support - Agreed. Kleuske (talk) 13:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support - An important historical photo, and certainly not likely to be reproduced. Severnjc (talk) 13:31, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Simonizer (talk) 13:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support Absolutely tops. --Blago Tebi (talk) 16:42, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support --George Chernilevsky talk 17:15, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Oppose - Same reasons as last time. In dark areas, too much detail is lost. I still think there's something wrong with the contrast/levels. Problem areas marked with image notes in the preview above. Lupo 14:55, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- Perhaps your monitor needs calibration? This was reedited to address those concerns. This does bring out more detail than the previous nomination. Other (non-uploaded) edits that go farther than this give an unnatural appearance. Would gladly send you the interim version if you'd like to try it yourself. Durova (talk) 15:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- My monitors are all fine, I think. (Using several different monitors and computers, in fact; same problem on all of them, and one of them is a calibrated 27'' iMac screen that is used for semi-professional graphical work.) Just compare with the unrestored original where the details are visible just fine. In fact, I just verified in GIMP that large parts of the shadow on the right man's back and left arm are just black (#000000). So it's not my monitors, but really something in this image. Lupo 16:19, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- As you can tell from the difference in filesize that "original" wasn't the actual starting point for this restoration. The Library of Congress later uploaded a much higher resolution version that was probably scanned separately. This restoration was edited from the highest resolution source file, although I had to convert it from 16 bit to 8 bit in order to upload to Commons. It gains an order of magnitude of resolution, which seems worth the loss of a few folds in Orville's jacket sleeve. Durova (talk) 17:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- Well, compare these two crops:
- As you can tell from the difference in filesize that "original" wasn't the actual starting point for this restoration. The Library of Congress later uploaded a much higher resolution version that was probably scanned separately. This restoration was edited from the highest resolution source file, although I had to convert it from 16 bit to 8 bit in order to upload to Commons. It gains an order of magnitude of resolution, which seems worth the loss of a few folds in Orville's jacket sleeve. Durova (talk) 17:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- My monitors are all fine, I think. (Using several different monitors and computers, in fact; same problem on all of them, and one of them is a calibrated 27'' iMac screen that is used for semi-professional graphical work.) Just compare with the unrestored original where the details are visible just fine. In fact, I just verified in GIMP that large parts of the shadow on the right man's back and left arm are just black (#000000). So it's not my monitors, but really something in this image. Lupo 16:19, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- Perhaps your monitor needs calibration? This was reedited to address those concerns. This does bring out more detail than the previous nomination. Other (non-uploaded) edits that go farther than this give an unnatural appearance. Would gladly send you the interim version if you'd like to try it yourself. Durova (talk) 15:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
-
Cropped directly from the 232MB TIFF scan from the Library of Congress (Converted from 16bit to 8bit by the GIMP) -
Cropped from the nominated File:First flight3.jpg
- As you may notice, the 16-to-8bit conversion still leaves much more detail than what remains in the restored version you nominated here. It is evident to me that something with the histogram adjustments went wrong. Lupo 13:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 15:27, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support That flight was no big achievement, really, but the photo... Yes, its quality is an achievement to be proud of. Wolf (talk) 20:43, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support--Lookatthis (talk) 01:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 12 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 08:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Historical
