Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:US Navy 041201-N-4308O-030 An F-A-18 Hornet assigned to the Silver Eagles of Marine Fighter Attack Squadron One One Five (VMFA-115), prepares to launch from one of four steam powered catapults.jpg

File:US Navy 041201-N-4308O-030 An F-A-18 Hornet assigned to the Silver Eagles of Marine Fighter Attack Squadron One One Five (VMFA-115), prepares to launch from one of four steam powered catapults.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Nov 2009 at 21:04:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by U.S. Navy photo by Photographer’s Mate Airman Ryan O'Connor - uploaded by BotMultichillT - nominated by GerardM -- GerardM (talk) 21:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- GerardM (talk) 21:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Great image. The steam makes it special. Multichill (talk) 21:55, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 23:01, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Durova (talk) 04:50, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support A lot of atmosphere :P Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 06:19, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support great composition and athmosphere. --Ikiwaner (talk) 08:15, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aqwis (talk) 09:50, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Noise and JPG artifacts. --NEURO ^⇌ 10:53, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose, if even I can see the technical flaws (see above), that means there is clearly something wrong with the picture. A pity... Airwolf (talk) 12:32, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Despite the technical flaws. -- Petritap (talk) 13:17, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Technical quality is much too poor. Maedin\^talk 11:08, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very noisy. —kallerna™ 13:03, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment all I see is steam ... GerardM (talk) 19:03, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karel (talk) 22:25, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support awesome (but the filename is a bit long) --Leafnode✉ 07:15, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Good for me. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose Terrible quality, jpeg artifacts and color noise. /Daniel78 (talk) 22:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose Promoting this is a non-sense. The quality is terrible. --S23678 (talk) 01:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info One should be a bit more careful when judging an image like this terrible or Promoting this is a non-sense. The pic was shot back in 2004 with a Nikon D2H. This was Nikons flagship-line professional camera that cost USD 6000 for the body only. It had 4.1 MP. There was simply no better technology available. The photographer Ryan O'Connor knew what he was doing by shooting this with manual exposure and spot metering. Who ever did a picture of fog knows that this tends to be noisy. Besides the fact that noise is better visible in uniform areas such as fog the fog itself is no homogeneous structure. Therefore I would not recommend to apply a strong denoising filter because the fog would look like semi-transparent plastic. Kudos to Ryan! --Ikiwaner (talk) 19:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That does not explain the jpeg artifacts. There was less visible artifacts in images from my digital camera I used in 1998. /Daniel78 (talk) 20:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per Daniel, I doubt that noise, posterization and artifacts are all camera-induced if we're talking about 2004 technology. Point-and-shoot cameras were better than that in 2004 (my 1 year old 5 mpx sony point-and-shoot was already 1 year old when this got taken). This picture's histogram was probably stretched one way or another, causing low contrast areas, like fog, to be severly degraded. --S23678 (talk) 02:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Jacopo Werther (talk) 21:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Beside the compression artifacts - which can ruin any photograph taken with both-handedly wielded best and most recent camera in the world, using state-of-the-art deep-matrix metering system, this photo is just FA-18 in the fog. Looks nice, but not informative enough. -- Blago Tebi (talk) 11:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is not fog, this is steam from the catapult that is about to launch this aeroplane in the air. This is imho a very illustrative picture exactly because of what you call "fog". — Preceding unsigned comment added by GerardM (talk • contribs) 19:23, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Mind that I have written "informative", not "illustrative". It would maybe be informative had the "fog" be visibly being emitted from mentioned catapult. Here, I don't see any catapult. Thus, I have to rely on your written description. Now, that is not enough information in the picture, sorry. -- Blago Tebi (talk) 12:37, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Per bad quality, confusing composition, compresion artifacts and image noise. - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 09:05, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 8 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Berthold Werner (talk) 09:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]