Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/F-15C during Operation Deny Flight

F-15C during Operation Deny Flight

Original - An F-15C is met by maintenance personnel at Aviano Air Base during Operation Deny Flight.

Edit 1. Crop to remove some of the grass. Remove noise and enhance color with iPhoto

Reason

I've never nominated a FP before, but I think that this is just a stunning image, particularly the rather ominous clouds in the background. In my opinion, it has excellent symbolism within the context of Operation Deny Flight and the Bosnian War. The raw power of the F-15C, but also the dark clouds gathering in the background. The picture was taken in 1993, just when it seemed like NATO airpower would make a big difference, but the optimists ignored the dark clouds in the background, which eventually led to Srebenica and the like.

Articles this image appears in

Operation Deny Flight, 36th Wing

Creator

Sergeant Jane Schroeder, USAF

• Support as nominator --Cool3 (talk) 01:25, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose To much noise and not very clear . Adam (talk) 02:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
• Comment Sorry, totally new to picture terminology. What is noise? Thanks. Cool3 (talk) 02:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC) Looked it up, for anyone else interested, please see Image noise. Cool3 (talk) 02:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - too many distracting elements and image noise. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose - I'd rather have the uniform film grain noise (it is film grain, as opposed to nasty digital CCD colour noise) than the strange lack of texture and non-uniform correction in the edit. As it is, I don't think the encyclopaedic value or the wow factor are high enough to justify the minor less-than-perfect-ness of the technical execution. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 19:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
• Weak oppose original, Strong oppose edit. Film grain is much preferable to the results of trying to remove grain digitally.--ragesoss (talk) 19:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

  Yes, I agree that the original is better than the edit. In my opinion, the edit also loses much of the "foreboding" that gives the original its value; however, it appears that no one else is supporting this anyway. Cool3 (talk) 21:33, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Not promoted ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 03:59, 9 April 2009 (UTC)