Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Uss iowa bb-61 pr.jpg

Image:Uss iowa bb-61 pr.jpg - featured

•  Info created by J. Alan Elliott - uploaded by ¡0-8-15! - anonymous nomination
  • Information added by Roger McLassus 18:06, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
• proposed by several users on French Wikipédia. The chock wave on the sea is impressive ... Proposed French title: "Le cuirassé USS Iowa tirant une salve d’obus de plus de 900 kg." I'm not sure about the English translation of the term "cuirassé". Verdy p 17:26, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

it is "battleship". Rama 10:36, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

•  Oppose great photo, amazing effects on the water surface, but resolution is far to low. Ss181292 22:27, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  •  Comment -- what resolution is required for a picture taken 24 years ago ?? Gnangarra 09:32, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  •  Comment yes, what EXACT resolutions are required. I need to know cause I want to nominate a bunch of my pics, but need to upload bigger versions. HOW big? and do they have to be bigger for featured pic status or just to satisfy the voters here. Mozasaur 01:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
    •  Comment When it, as in this case, comes to photos that is originally analog but digitized afterwards, I think one threshold one has to surpass is the one where an even higher resolution would contribute only a negliable amount of extra information to the result. That is, push it to the point where the quality of the original photo is the bottleneck and the image looks blurry (as a result of the limitations of the camera) when viewed at full resolution. That way you know you haven't destroyed anything. Such images are of course just a special case. In general, I am personally not very fond of images that is anywhere near fitting on any of my screens. My own little camera grabs in 2272×1704, which, to me, definitely is a lower limit for when the image becomes enjoyable without that claustrophobic touch. ;-) As a recommendation to you, I'd say give us what you've got! Don't downsample at all. Bromskloss 13:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  •  Comment resolution should be suitable, for example, for printing somewhere. Size 740x585px isn't even enough for screen presentation. Ss181292 12:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
•  Support invalid support, user was not logged in and has no commons account Lycaon 20:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC) I also find this photo great and rare, and very illustrative in a encyclopedic article of a physical effect produced by explosion chock waves, and of good enough quality (what is a "too low resolution" for an image that would be used as a Picture of the day, so it will be displayed at a size seen here? It already takes nearly the full browser window at maximum resolution, and it will be difficult to find high resolution images from public US army archives ; it has great colors, and is well centered on the subject) ; this image really changes from the usual country landscapes, mountains, lakes, sun falls. It can be the base of an interesting Wikipedia article. Verdy p 17:26, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
•  Support really amazing. pfctdayelise (translate?) 02:41, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
•  Support -- an awesome demostration of the power to the guns on a battleship Gnangarra 09:29, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
•  Support -- Lerdsuwa 10:26, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
•  Oppose. Resolution way too low. This is neither featured thumbnails nor picture of the day, this is featured picture candidates. --Dschwen 16:04, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
•  Support --Prevert^(talk) 17:25, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
•  Neutral good picture but low resolution MGo 09:04, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
•  Support Resolution doesn't really bother me. It's an afwul picture. MartinD 09:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Guessing you mean an awesome picture? Masonbarge
    • So sorry, you are quite right. MartinD 08:27, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
•  Support Really good image. Amazing and informative. Freedom to share 15:32, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
•  Oppose sorry, but less than 0.5mp is just too low, even if it's a really nice picture like this. Age doesn't count in this case because film photography didn't change too much in the last 20-30 years. Unfortunately this is just a low res scan of a great picture. -- Gorgo 18:02, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
•  Oppose -- ack Gorgo -- Boereck 18:17, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
•  Support -- Love it! awesome image, and looking at resolution, its fine for purpose intended. Wiki is NOT paper, and it fills my screen ok. This image moves me. Mozasaur 01:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • actually that's not true at all, wikipedia is an encyclopedia not an online-dump for text ;) and there are for example also plans for a paper-version of the german wikipedia (not that sure about the english). Besides commons is not only about wikipedia, there are a lot of other projects too. So size does matter (especially for fpc). -- Gorgo 18:40, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Why not? 740x585 at 300 dpi, it's still over 2 inches in size. Not book cover material but should be enough when put together with text. -- Lerdsuwa 18:00, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
      • but that's exactly what featured pictures are (or should be) book cover material -- Gorgo 23:57, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
•  Oppose Low resolution, composition (cut too narrow at the bow, wave effects are cut too). The colour is nice, but does not compensate for the cropping Rama 10:36, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
•  Support low resolution, but the picture is exceptional --che 11:43, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
•  Support WOW! Masonbarge 18:52, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
•  Support Afther thinking it I agree with che (again)... Francisco M. Marzoa 10:51, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose I have for a long time been impressed by this one, but the resolution… Also, there are funny compression artifacts (I think), most easily visible on the water in the bottom part of the image, in the right half where the water is sunlit. It looks like a mosaic of squares. I would for that matter say that it in general didn't survive the compression very well, but that could also be the lousy screen I'm on for the moment. :-/ —Bromskloss 13:48, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
•  Oppose Lycaon 18:48, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
•  Support --Shizhao 11:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
•  Oppose Pjotr 12:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
•  Support El Comandante 23:04, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
•  Support really amazing. --Onderwijsgek 16:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
•  Oppose - doesn't do anything for me - MPF 21:49, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
•  Support - Resolution is not an issue if you're not printing! It's big enough to enjoy for viewing. Waqas.usman 22:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
•  Support I have some doubts, but finally I think stage is more importand than low resolution.Sebastianm 19:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
•  Support V impressive. Res not important GrahamBould 14:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
•  Support - Minto 21:13, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
•  Support --WarX 06:42, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

18 support, 9 oppose, 1 neutral --> Featured Roger McLassus 06:53, 15 May 2006 (UTC)