Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Supermarine Spitfire XVI

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Supermarine Spitfire XVI[edit]

Supermarine Spitfire XVI at Duxford
Edit 2 by Diliff. Similar processing as Edit 1, but higher quality noise reduction (Neatimage) and lower JPEG compression = better result
Edit 3 by Diliff. Same as Edit 2, with additional cropping. There is basically nothing of interest in the background sky so why not crop a little more to maximise the thumbnail view?
Edit 4 by Fir0002
Edit 5 by Fir0002, removed "halo". Personally I don't feel it's needed
Enlargements of key areas of selected edits. View at 100% size for analysis and see discussion for further comments.

I think this is a pretty nice illustration of a Spitfire -- you can even see the pilot's helment and mask. I took the photo at an air show at Duxford last month.

Note: Edit 1 also exists. It has been removed for the sake of clarity (and that it has not recieved much support). If you think it should be reinstated, feel free to put it back.

  • Nominate and support edit 3. Strong oppose edit 4 and 5 due to loss of detail, over compression, and over saturation. - chowells 10:44, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support edit 2. Support original or edit 3. Weak Support edit 1. As Diliff mentioned, edit 4 has a halo effect, and I believe edit 5 didn't help much in removing it Therefore, I Oppose both. As for the picture, it has great quality, good encylcopedic value, and it's pleasing to the eye; it's got it all. NauticaShades(talk) 12:25, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support edit 2 or edit 3. Excellent shot, and everything Nauticashades has said before me. Ideal lead image for the article. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 12:33, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It's a very nice picture, and a great angle too, but, is it just my monitor settings, or is this photo dark? Strong Support edit 4 With those edits, this picture is 100% marvelous! I support Fir's edit; it is clearly the best. | AndonicO 22:13, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is slightly dark on the forground side twards the tail. Where is Fir0002 when you need him? :) -Ravedave (help name my baby) 15:49, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno where Fir is, but I can do an edit to make it brighter. Just give me a few minutes to work on it and I should have it up soon. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 18:16, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There, done. As you can see from the caption, I brightened it, adjusted the contrast somewhat, and removed some noise. I would recommend looking at the edit at full res, there are some details missing in the original that are visible in my edit, but only at full res. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 18:29, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately there are rather a lot of JPEG artifacts in your edit. chowells 18:37, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Really? I can't see any. At any rate, I saved it under the maximum quality setting in photoshop elements. Either they were there before, or something else happened (can't imagine what). --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 18:41, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well judging by the difference in file size, it can't be the maximum quality - or if it is, then Elements doesn't have a particularly conservative compression slider. In reducing noise, you will also have reduced the information required in the JPEG, but I reduced noise a little further in my edit(s) and the filesize was still ~2500kb. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 21:35, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I mis-typed. What I should've said was that I saved it on "one of the highest quality settings," not the maximum. Now that I look a bit closer I do see the artifacts. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 12:09, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Edit 4 Fantastic! doniv 14:32, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support change to Strong Support edit 4. Never, was so much, owed so many, by Fir0002. Excellent photo of one of the most important aircraft ever flown. --Bridgecross 15:25, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • What exactly does that comment mean regarding Fir0002? Theres a few too many commas in there - I'm confused. :) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support - edit 4 Excellent (and detailed!) photo especially since it was taken by a wikipedian. (and Fir's edit is makes an excellent picture awsome)-Ravedave (help name my baby) 15:49, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mild support - a brilliant photo that should definitely be featured, but it would definitely benefit from Fir0002 or someone else with his level of skill sorting out the colour balance and brightening the whole thing up a bit. Otherwise, cracking stuff. Strongly support, edit 4 in particular - the third edit loses a small sense of movement and grace which edit four captures perfectly, and with vivid colour to boot. A truly fantastic photo. - CountdownCrispy ( ? 16:11, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I especially like the propellor. Debivort 18:16, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, what are we waiting for!? -- Lego@lost Rocks Collide! 20:03, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support very nice shot. (edit 2 looks best to me!) InvictaHOG 21:21, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Beautiful picture, great depiction of one of the most important aircraft in history. Akubra 23:14, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Diliff; I actually like your edit 2 a little better. By cropping the plane closer to the prop and tail, it seems to lose something, perhaps a sense of forward motion. It might just be me, but that's my preference. --Bridgecross 00:29, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support any version. "To the heavens" -- TomStar81 (Talk) 01:43, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Edit 4 or original. Sorry for the delay ;-) --Fir0002 02:39, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I like all the versions, I've really no preference. Beautifully taken picture. WikipedianProlific(Talk) 12:50, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support edit 2. Terrific shot, but the way there's more sky on the top than on the bottom just bugs me. I think it's because the subject is "facing" the edge of the photograph, and not the center (like in portraits, if the subject is off-center, they should be looking across the photograph, not at the edge they're closest to). --Tewy 21:39, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support edit 2. Very nice. High res, fairly sharp, encyclopedic. I don't like the cropping in edit 3, and Fir's (edit 4) is way too saturated in the sky, and looks artificially sharpened in excess. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 12:09, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously this doesn't mean much, but just for interest I actually did not touch the saturation at all in terms of using the Hue/Saturation tool in Photoshop. I achieved that effect through a few rather unconventional techniques which worked well on this image because of the blue sky (enabled me to get an almost perfect cut out through the blue channel). Obviously I can't tell what the pic looks like on your monitor or what color of the sky you think is "normal", but personally I think it's just the prefect hue for that kind of sky (high above the horizon). Anyway that's just for interest; as obviously saturation is a percieved strength of the colors, not just adjustment through the hue/saturation tool, but through any means of boosting the colors. --Fir0002 12:20, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Although I do sometimes disagree with the sentiment and results of some of your edits, I have to admit that you do yourself no favours by uploading an edit without any explanation of what you have done (except in circumstances like this when you feel the need to explain it). Sometimes it is obvious, but other times, subtle adjustments that you have made can be missed because we aren't aware we should be looking for them. In this case though, I'm not sure exactly what you are trying to say you did to the image, but it almost looks to me like you painted the sky - There is a distinct lack of contrast around the aerial (it 'fades' into the sky compared to the original and other edits) above the R and around the canopy, and a strange halo around the blurred propellor blades. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 13:24, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well see this is why I don't usually explain what I do in my edits because it is usually a complex process. In this particular image, I extracted the blue channel as a seperate layer. I then applied levels until I had the sky a pure white and the plane a dark black. I painted over the blue markings on the plane in black. I then inverted that layer. Then I used levels to reduce the white point to a gray (about 1/3 down the slider by memory). Then I put that layer into softlight ontop of the original, and bang! It looks good. --Fir0002 22:22, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well fair enough but bang! It has also introduced haloes around the propellers and removed detail from the areas I mentioned above. I don't think it is as good as you think it is - too many side-effects. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 07:00, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough about the aerial (minor detail), but I really can't see where you get your haloes from. Several images you've mentioned haloes where I can't seen any. Oh well I guess it's impossible to determine what the average person would see on an average monitor. You're free to think it's not very good, but I hope I'm also extended the right to think it is good. The only side effect I'm getting is the less prominent aerial - something I personally am quite willing to sacrifice in the face of the huge improvements elsewhere. --Fir0002 08:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I urge you to compare the propellers in your image and the others. There are definitely artifacts, particularly on the far left side. The problem I see is that you didn't need to sacrifice anything if only you had masked the plane better when you were working your black magic. And as for average people seeing things on average monitors, I can't imagine how anyone could miss it on any monitor if only they lookd closely, as it isn't at the light or dark end of the spectrum here - as long as you can see mid-range detail, you should be able to see the faults I mentioned. If you still can't see it, I will go ahead and create an image with the faults magnified side-by-side later, but I can't at the moment as I'm at work. And yes, I extend you the right to think whatever you like, but I'll try to point out the flaws in your logic if they're presented in FPC ;-). This is about creating the best final image, when it comes to it. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've just added some elargements to highlight the haloes and strange effects that your edit has had, as well as strong noise visible. I feel that the canopy above the pilots head lacks definition in Edit 4. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 18:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Gentlemen, one question (maybe dumb, certainly impertinent): Why are you so "hot" on making (often unrequested) edits, many of them rather pointless (example: Zanzibar)? Sure, you've both done a lot of good edit work, but I think edits should be held to a minimum number, since too many make the closing of a nom really hard - remember all the previous talk, and the re-voting requests by closers. Of course, when an edit is requested, then it's time to act, but do we really need four edits, thus five versions to vote on, for a simple picture like this? BTW, Fir, I must agree with Diliff, especially after seeing the enlarged example - the cockpit cover has a "cookie-cutter" edge in edit 4, and there are indeed artifacts around the prop. --Janke | Talk 07:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Moved discussion to talk page, as this has definetly left the realm of this nomination. --Fir0002 07:42, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support edit 4 consensus edit for nice crop and color (would like to see the noise reduction added again!). –Outriggr § 03:22, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, with a personal preference for the fourth version. RFerreira 06:04, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support edit 3. There's considerably too much uninteresting blue sky in the other versions, no matter how saturated it's supposed to be. --S0uj1r0 10:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain, too many versions to choose from. See talk page. --Janke | Talk 07:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support edit 2, unless consensus favors edit 3. Oppose 4 and 5 due to edit artifacts. More on talk page. --Janke | Talk 07:43, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support edit 2. - Mailer Diablo 10:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support any and all of these. Nice lighting, good angle, and good detail. Composition is more documentary than artistic (you can choose whether that is good or bad). The original is rather fine, most of the edits are marginally better. -- Solipsist 21:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Edit 4. I think it is the clearest.Akubra 00:02, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Edit 3. This is a great, encyclopedic photo; but I think that Fir's edits, while they do make some of the detail clearer, deviate too far from the original photo in this case. TSP 13:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Supermarine_Spitfire_Mk_XVI_NR.jpg. I have promoted the second edit. There was quite a bit of support for edits 2, 3 and 4; however, there was also quite a bit of opposition to edit 4 and 5. So, that brought it down to 2 vs 3; a straight vote count gave edit 2 the lead. ♠ SG →Talk 03:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changed edit promotion as per discussion here. Final tally: Original - 2 Edit 1 - 0 Edit 2 - 6 Edit 3 - 3 Edit 2/3 - 1 Edit 4 - 8 Edit 5 - 0 Any edit - 3 --Fir0002 10:03, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit promotion changed back to original closer's decision, per discussion here. -- Moondigger 22:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Supermarine_Spitfire_XVI&oldid=1108953298"