Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:C17virginia.jpg

Image:C17virginia.jpg

#1  #2 #3

•  Info created by the US government - uploaded by Orlovic - nominated by --Orlovic 13:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --Orlovic 13:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
•  Support A good example of Atmospheric perspective (or aerial perspective) too. --Atoma 15:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Very good image. --MichaelMaggs 19:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --LucaG 20:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
•  Comment - "Seventeen C-17 Globemaster III aircraft fly over ..." Someone at the USAF can't count? Or have four crashed? There's also a fault in the pic on the tail of the lead plane, a blurry blob half way up the tail stem. And the source link doesn't lead to the right pic at the source website. - MPF 20:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • There's also a raindrop on the lens on the lower right, just above the horizon. ~ trialsanderrors 21:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  •  Comment I believe, that they made this photo from another C-17, so rest of the planes are behind the camera --Leafnode 06:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose -- noisy (and airforce publicity) Lycaon 20:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --Leafnode 06:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Excellent. --Karelj 16:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --WarX 19:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC) thiz image lookz gr8 :)
•  Oppose - Good composition, image quality quite far from it. - Alvesgaspar 22:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose noisy Romary 19:12, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose due to blurry blob fault half way up the tail stem - MPF 22:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose agree with Alvesgaspar --Simonizer 08:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

result: 7 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured.  Simonizer 07:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Alternative #2, featured

•  Comment - The air looks really muddy on this image. I like the other image DF-SD-06-03299 051220-F-5964B-161 that is the exact same shot. However, it looks post-processed to be brighter. Find it with the search at the Defense Visiual Information Center. Is there a way to vote on the alternate? Kgrr 04:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Added as alternative. ~ trialsanderrors 05:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
•  Support you could have simply changed the first image. I must vote for the second. --Orlovic 09:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
•  Support The second image looks better, less smoggy. Kgrr 16:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose noisy like the first version Romary 19:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Good picture ! --Alipho 20:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --Karelj 21:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Under the circumstance of moving objects, both pics are quite good. It is much easyer to make better quality still photohtaphs with some insect or building waiting for you infinitely. Ziga 06:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --Malene Thyssen 13:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose as above Lycaon 06:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose due to blurry blob fault half way up the tail stem - MPF 22:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Removed. ~ trialsanderrors 00:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
•  Support ~ trialsanderrors 00:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose good composition but noisy! --Simonizer 08:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --Arad 01:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

result: 8 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 08:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Alternative #3, not featured

•  Comment - This image version was cleaned up by Fir0002 and is about as clear as the image can possibly be. It retains the original lighting. Unfortunately the smudge is still on the tail of the main plane, bit it's pretty damn good! Witty lama
•  Support Witty lama 00:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose as above + introduced vignetting and halo on tail. Lycaon 10:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose as above--Pedroserafin 15:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose agree with Lycaon --Simonizer 08:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day)Simonizer 08:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)