Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Strategic Air Command B-47 Stratojets - 020903-o-9999r-001.jpg

File:Strategic Air Command B-47 Stratojets - 020903-o-9999r-001.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Mar 2017 at 15:30:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Air transport
Info Strategic Air Command B-47 Stratojet bombers. The world's first swept-wing bomber. Created by US Air Force - uploaded by Upload Bot - nominated by KennyOMG -- KennyOMG (talk) 15:30, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Info Superb quality, asthetically pleasing, and the placid scenery minutes after a shower contrast very well with the cold war craze emanated form the photo. I know some will say it's burnt out but please consider that this picture was 1) shot on film with much greater exposure latitude than what digital can handle most of the time and 2) was scanned in 2006 (or earlier) when the technical capabilities were not the same as they are today. I'm absolutely certain the negative has all the highlight info in the clouds. -- KennyOMG (talk) 15:30, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- KennyOMG (talk) 15:30, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well, we're judging the digital version and not the negative. But there's no problem with clipping highlights in general. It's just that clipping typically occurs very abruptly on digital sensors due to their linear response to light, and that often leads to sharp and ugly-looking borders between clipped and non-clipped areas. One of the few advantages negative film still has today is that the response to light is not linear and the transition from pure black (on the negative) to areas with less density is often much smoother (some examples here). This one looks perfectly fine for me. And there hasn't really been much innovation in terms of dedicated film scanners since the mid-2000s [1] – actually many manufacturers stopped making film scanners around that time, so chances are this is about as good as it gets (no info on the scanner model in the meta data, but at least they used 3 progressive scan runs). Oh, and of course it's an awesome picture. --El Grafo (talk) 17:05, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I meant post-processing like hdr and such. -- KennyOMG (talk) 19:40, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom and El Grafo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:10, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Dynamic, interesting photo and good quality scan. – Lucas ^T 18:37, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Full of mood and drama. Daniel Case (talk) 21:05, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:24, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:26, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 06:38, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:59, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 09:59, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 11:47, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Magnificent. --cart-Talk 10:50, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- AVIA BavARia (talk) 23:01, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /lNeverCry 06:21, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Vehicles/Air transport