Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/VERTREP Composite Pano.jpg

VERTREP Composite Pano.jpg

Reason: A pretty striking composite picture of a vertical replenishment.
Articles this image appears in: VERTREP
Creator: U.S. Navy photo by Photographer's Mate 2nd Class John L. Beeman

Support as nominator --— raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 05:32, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Impressive and dynamic, but apart from just 958 px of height, the ship has an unnatural bend and the three helicopters are cut off. Could be submitted to valued pictures instead. Brand[t] 18:42, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suppport Oh, go canvass for your pet ghetto program from the archives. Leave the active candidacies alone. Durova³²⁰ 19:33, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Huge amounts of Wow and EV. Why canvass for VP when the nomination hasn't even run a day? Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 210 FCs served} 19:37, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. "illustrating article content particularly well... eye-catching to the point where users will want to read its accompanying article". Plus, it's over 4000px across; the quality is there. Mostlyharmless (talk) 04:51, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm under the impression that this is getting support just because it got canvassed for VPC. Anyway, this is as wonky as it gets panorama wise and the helicopter is cut off for most of the stitched frames. Frankly I think that something like File:Verticalreplen 20061120.jpg has more enc, if less wow. Noodle snacks (talk) 10:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That other image isn't nearly as high EV, it doesn't show both ships, a VERTREP is ship-to-ship, this proposed image clearly shows the processes in a single image. Having a couple of the shots cutting off the helicopter at it's apex isn't that big of a deal imho since the helicopter is still clearly visible throughout the others. And how is the panaorma "wonky". — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 05:51, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it would be better to request clarification rather than leaping to conclusions. I am a former US Navy Photographer's Mate, after all. The operation being documented here is an underway replenishment--which is one of the most dangerous evolutions two ships can perform. Getting a good shot of a helicopter during vertrep is not easy (I've tried it); but to get as much of the operation as this within a single pano is incredible. Obviously there's distortion; there has to be. I've never seen a composite like this attempted before. Highly encyclopedic, and within the physical constraints of the setting it's quite a photographic accomplishment. Durova³²¹ 18:59, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I fully intend to renominate this in a month if it doesn't pass now. This is an astounding image, and, if I mentioned VPC, it's because Brandt acted in a completely inappropriate manner by attempting to shut down an imaghe with a high chance of passing, rather effectively since it led to you opposing over a false controversy. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 210 FCs served} 05:15, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was planning to oppose before his comment. I've seen plenty composites of this type, but for birds in flight. I gather it isn't difficult at all provided you have a fairly steady pan, and a camera capable of a high frame rate. Noodle snacks (talk) 21:55, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And FWIW Brand did not attempt to 'shut it down', nor did he create the 'controversy'. He could have omitted his second attempted helpful sentence re VP completely, and had a perfectly valid Oppose vote rather than a Comment if he had wanted to. I find the comments directed at him here by both users quite offensive. --jjron (talk) 07:46, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please take this debate outside of the vote, this isn't the place for this. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 08:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, indeed there is no canvassing or 'shutting down', I just offered another venue if the image does not receive enough support. In terms of support/oppose I still abstain here. Brand[t] 20:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~ per Noodle. --Muhammad(talk) 13:24, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral per Durova's arguments --Muhammad(talk) 15:11, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Noodle. upstate NYer 17:19, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Opppose Franklin.vp 19:22, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mostlyharmless hit the nail on the head for me - the minute i saw this i immediately started reading the article... Great picture, and the flaws mentioned are massively outweighed by the difficulty in capturing this process effectively as per Durova. Gazhiley (talk) 12:59, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - the wow factor is incredible on this one for me. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 16:17, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 05:23, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]