Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Air Force Memorial

Air Force Memorial

File:Air Force Memorial at NightEdit 1.jpg

Edit1, lightened the monument

File:Air Force Memorial at Night edit2.jpg

Edit2, increased contrast (which also makes the monument lighter), and cropped the top slightly

Reason: The result of a 12-part stitch to produce high detail, interesting lighting.
Articles this image appears in: United States Air Force Memorial
Creator: User:Noclip
Nominator: Noclip

Support — Noclip 23:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Notwithstanding the artistic taste of the US Airforce (or lack thereof), the picture is well executed. Chris 73 | Talk 23:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Agreed. Very cool! tiZom_(2¢) 00:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support any. Good night shot. --Tewy 03:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The pillars are too dimly lit to make the pic striking enough for FP - Adrian Pingstone 09:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent work. Very sharp throughout, and I disagree with Adrian Pingstone because I think the lighting is quite good. Some manual contrast tweaking could really make the pillars shine (which I would do if I had the time), but as is, it is still very good. --Asiir 12:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Uploaded edit 2, which increases contrast and crops top slightly. --Asiir 12:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Just three curved cocks. Nothing interesting. Olegivvit 14:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No need to be a WP:DICK about it. The pillars obviously are supposed to symbolize something else, as detailed in the United States Air Force Memorial article. -- tariqabjotu 14:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support -Nelro 20:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Conditional support If someone could tweak the image a little and brighten the pillars slightly, I'd support, otherwise I'm neutral. --Mad Max 21:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If your neutral why did you specify conditional support? Ahadland 15:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Probably neutral for now, support with the specified edit. --Tewy 21:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support edit 1 I like the contrast in edit2, but it seems a little excessive and unnatural at the bottom near the trees. --Mad Max 01:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I like the contrast of light upon the dark settings on the metal memorial. Real96 22:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support 8thstar 17:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Edit 1 It is my edit but I do think it looks best. -Fcb981 22:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Adrian Pinkstone. Witty lama 22:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:49, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not interesting at all.--Svetovid 23:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support edit 1 and original Tomer T 11:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Not very interesting. Kaldari 04:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't believe being very interesting is part of the criteria. Noclip 13:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It really isn't, especially considering an image like this. --Tewy 17:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - That picture makes my head hurt... hah 8thstar 14:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- To be more specific, this image fails the 3rd and 7th criterion.--Svetovid 00:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, it's pretty blurry, I think that's just a result of being a night shot. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 23:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, I tried to separate my dislike for the structure in general and the picture's quality... I don't know if I succeeded but I don't think it's FP material like many others. gren グレン 08:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Not bad at all, but not quite FP material either in my opinion. --KFP (talk | contribs) 22:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Terence 05:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]