Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor

Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 27 Sep 2010 at 13:22:06 (UTC)

Reason: Dynamic, high resolution, illustrative and encyclopedic image. This is what I think our standard for aviation images should be.
Articles in which this image appears: Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor, Air supremacy, Supercruise, United States Air Force
FP category for this image: Vehicles:Air
Creator: Rob Shenk

Support as nominator --Cowtowner (talk) 13:22, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info Previous nomination Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 13:28, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, I had a feeling this had been nominated previously; just couldn't find it. I can't really make out the concerns mentioned in that nomination; to me, if they're there, they wouldn't be a deal breaker. Cowtowner (talk) 14:32, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - When I was nominating that, the concerns about some digital manipulations have been raised and the image did not get enough votes. Twilightchill t 20:23, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - As I said, it doesn't look manipulated it to me. I'm sure if we downsized it to minimal resolution, as seems to be the trend in recent airplane noms, those would disappear. Cowtowner (talk) 22:10, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - It's not that they were downsized, as such (as a rule, we don't downsize) it's that that was the largest version released by the author. J Milburn (talk) 00:08, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        In most of these cases I suspect the photographer is far away (probably on the ground) and shooting with a telephoto lens; even with a powerful zoom lens the resulting image is going to be relatively small. That seems like a reasonable concession; it's unrealistic to expect all airplane FPs to be shot from 100 feet away. Tim Pierce (talk) 01:10, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Firstly to Milburn, that's true, but the point I was making was really that the images in question have been shrunk from their original resolution. To Tim, yes it's true that most of them may well be small but we are here to focus on the best of these images which may well be only those shot from 100 feet away. Cowtowner (talk) 05:20, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. There are certainly some visible artifacts in this image, particularly around the perimeter of the plane (see the lighter pixels between the plane's wing and the sky), and the plane's body itself looks overly denoised. Far too minor to diminish the value of this image. Tim Pierce (talk) 21:43, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can see where these artifacts would raise concerns about digital manipulation. The FP criteria don't disallow all manipulation though, only "inappropriate" manipulation. In this case I suspect the background was altered, perhaps to remove clouds. It would be nice to see the original, unmodified image to see exactly what, if anything, was done. Note that this seems to have been cropped to remove a signature in the lower right corner, as can be seen in the flikr version.--RDBury (talk) 01:36, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support There is a single pixel artifact under the lower edge; unfortunately, Wikipedia's downsizing algorithm emphasises and persists this artifact, and even appears to introduce some ringing artifacts of its own in the low res versions. I don't see this as a serious reason to oppose the image. I also saw what I thought was aggressive denoising on the wings until I realised it was vapour trails over the wings, creating a similar optical effect. If the rest was denoised it was done with extraordinary patience and skill, there is a lot of detail that blends in seamlessly. Vapour trail and exhaust effects are nicely captured: dynamic shots are so superior to posed ones. Definitely among the best miltary hardware shots on WP. Doug (talk) 18:34, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support: absolutely gorgeous image, high EV, seems to be some technical squabbles about the nature of the image vs. digital alteration, but I see no evidence of a violation to the criterion. bahamut0013^words _deeds 14:17, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
+ Gorgeous, I want to fly one now. Nergaal (talk) 04:30, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Can we assume that means support Nergaal? I personally never like to asssume... gazhiley.co.uk 10:07, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, it is a support. Nergaal (talk) 20:54, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Lockheed_Martin_F-22A_Raptor_JSOH.jpg Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 14:50, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]