Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Apollo 11 liftoff from launch tower camera

Apollo 11's liftoff as seen from a launch tower camera[edit]

Reason: This is an image of the first instants of one of the most significant expeditions in the history of the world. The composition is visually impressive and imparts an impression of ponderous size yet violent motion. Its presence in the Saturn V article visually underlines the importance of that rocket in world history. It's not currently in the Apollo 11 article itself because the article is so loaded with images I didn't see a way of shoehorning it in without bumping something else out- requires talk page discussion I haven't started as of yet. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 11:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Articles this image appears in: Saturn V
Creator: NASA (Uploaded by myself, Elipongo)

Support as nominator --—Elipongo (Talk contribs) 11:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose and probably a candidate for speedy close. Spectacular scene obviously, but the technical quality is absolutely awful. Poor sharpness, low resolution (above the minimum requirements but only just), jpeg artifacting... Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've never really understood the point of the "strong" modifier in debates like this- a person's rationale should be what backs up their opinion, not that they hold it "strongly"- but it is common practice anyway so whatever. However what is the point of bolding the speedy close comment? Something like that is usually better left to the regular typeface comments. To address your points though, firstly "spectacular scene" has nothing to do with it- every rocket launch is a pretty darn spectacular fireworks show- this is a photograph of one of the most important events in human history. The landing on the Moon part wasn't nearly the challenge that getting off the Earth was. This is equivalent to having a photograph of Columbus setting sail. As to the technical aspects of the photo- I am frankly surprised NASA was able to get one as good as this one is. When you consider that the camera is within tens of feet of the most powerful rocket ever produced (The Saturn V hasn't been surpassed in payload to this day) with all the vibration and lighting issues that implies as well as the pure speed of a rocket; and further considering the limitations of the technology in the late 1960s and the likelihood of poor archiving on NASA's part (heck they've lost all of Apollo 11's telemetry somehow!) this photo is pretty darn good, imho. It's much better than the closest other version we have Image:Apollo11-Launch-Tower-Camera.jpg. I suppose someone should check if I didn't introduce some artifacting when I cropped it with MS Paint (it's all I've got, sorry). Anyways, that's all I've got to say. I won't argue anymore and I'll let things stand on their merits. Cheers! —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 13:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Using 'strong' just allows readers that are scanning through to see that this person is particularly against (or for) the nomination. Obviously it does need to be backed up by relevant information in the comment too though. The same applies for the speedy close, having this bold means taht people quickly looking through can see the voters opinions easier. I'm guessing by 'spectacular scene' he is referring to it being the apollo 11 launch in particular, rather than just the view of a rocket launch in general. The quality of the image isn't really good enough for FP, and the encyclopaedic value doesn't quite warrant it either. There are other apollo 11 photos that might be FP worthy, or already are (eg Image:Ksc-69pc-442.jpg, Image:Apollo 11 launch.jpg, Image:Aldrin Apollo 11.jpg), so it's not as if the event is ignored in FPs. C hris_huh^talk 14:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thats right, Chris_huh has explained the reason behind a strong modifier nicely. It doesn't necessarily carry more weight unless it is backed up with strong arguments and, at least in my case, it isn't used often. As for NASA not having the ability or technology to take a better shot, I beg to differ. Obviously it would require a more complicated set up than is usually provided for a fixed camera, but you could easily rig the camera up to stabilisation system similar to what film cameramen use, and/or attach the camera to a simple gyroscopic system. Either of these would minimise vibration to the camera. This is NASA we're talking about here, and the technology was easily available at the time. The question is whether they could justify it for a single photo, I guess. As for the jpeg artifacts, they are actually present in the original you linked to on the NASA website, so you're not to blame - its NASA in this case. They're capable of producing much better images than this, and there are many others from this era to prove it. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 14:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The biggest problem isn't part of the original shot, it's the JPG compression - which can be solved by getting a higher quality conversion from the original. Oppose. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξ φ 17:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose NASA should really not be providing 'high resolution versions of anything exhibiting such terrible jpeg compression - handy in the 1980s when we were dialing up at 9600 baud, but they now need to update these files. Mfield (talk) 18:11, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose in spite of superlative ev, just not up to the minimum technical standard. Durova^Charge! 23:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Snowball's chance... --Janke | Talk 14:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A veritable blizzard in fact. <sigh> It's a darn shame that none of our photos of this launch have the technical quality and the visual impact needed for FP status. We must have Wikimedians who work for NASA who can get us better scans, but I've been at a loss to find a userbox or a user category to find them as of yet (probably was nominated at WP:UCFD when I wasn't looking...) Anyways, I guess I'll withdraw this nom momentarily. Sorry for the trouble. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 02:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --—Elipongo (Talk contribs) 02:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]