Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:First flight2.jpg

File:First flight2.jpg, not featured

Voting period ends on 30 Mar 2009 at 23:24:14

Info The first airplane flight. Created by Wilbur Wright and Orville Wright - uploaded by Durova - nominated by Durova. Restored version of File:Wrightflyer highres.jpg. Would replace current featured version File:Wrightflyer.jpg nominated for delisting below. -- Durova (talk) 23:24, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Durova (talk) 23:24, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Should've been like this in the first place! Thanks for following proper procedure. Lycaon (talk) 00:49, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Things move along much more smoothly if you communicate via normal channels. Please do so in future. :) Durova (talk) 00:51, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support ■ MMXX^talk 09:13, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support wow can you please add the EXIF ;) --AngMoKio (talk) 10:38, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What do you mean by EXIF? Durova (talk) 16:24, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - was just kidding...Digital cameras store EXIF-Data with the pic in which you can see technical details about how the pic was made (aperture, shutter speed and so on..). Btw do u agree with my statement about the lost nuances? --AngMoKio (talk) 16:59, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ah, joke. :) Re: detail, might be a matter of monitor settings? Durova (talk) 19:58, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - hm..I have a ~~calibrated~~ monitor. But even when I increase gamma or brightness in the new version i can't see the details of the old one. Look at the jacket details of the guy on the plain. There are several details lost that you clearly see on the original (at least with my monitor). --AngMoKio (talk) 21:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose after a second look i found out that the restored version lost quite some details and nuances. It is very obvious when you compare the guy on the plane in the original and the new version. I guess this shouldn't happen when you restore photos. --AngMoKio (talk) 14:40, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Until the present ambiguity between the intrinsic value of a picture and the quality of a restore is resolved by a vast community consensus and proper assessment criteria. That ambiguity has lead to the unilateral creation of this page (which is a showcase of Commons to the outside world) and the self-promotion of its two members. In the process, the concept of "Feature picture" and this very forum were abused in a way I consider to be unacceptable. If someone considers this vote to be just a POV, please strike the vote but leave the protest. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:23, 22 March 2009 (UTC) No longer applies -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:22, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - agree with AngMoKio. It's most noticeable on the man on the right, but you can also see it on the engine. Something's wrong with the levels/contrast. Otherwise a fine job. Lupo 16:20, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support GerardM (talk) 21:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 15:06, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pro2 (talk) 15:51, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Changed my mind per AngMoKio. Lycaon (talk) 21:24, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood (talk) 11:52, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]