Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/B-25 Mitchell

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] B-25 Mitchell

High resolution full colour picture taken during World War II. I've only seen a few colour pictures from WWII, and this one is certainly one of the cleanest and largest.
Public Domain as a work of the US Government taken by Alfred T. Palmer on October 1942.

• Nominate and support. - Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 09:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support. A little nosiy, but very encyclopedic and historically significant. NauticaShades 10:02, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Per Nautica, but the resolution is great for a historical photo. Leon 11:16, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support This is over 50 years old? Wow! It's a great picture for that time. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 11:38, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support very historically significant, and per nom a rare color photograph given the time period.--Mike 15:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Considering the time period, the quality is excellent (per above). --HereToHelp 18:49, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support per above --antilived ^{T | C | G} 21:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Good quality image for the time, and historically significant. Hello32020 01:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support I am all about WWII, and apparently so is this picture. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support per all above. User:Sd31415/Sig 14:05, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support excellent quality for that era. Archibald99 23:56, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support - better quality than a lot of the USGov work taken with modern equipment! --YFB ¿ 02:21, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support – b_jonas 16:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Quality and historic without LOSING that quality! Staxringold _talk^contribs 22:14, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Superb quality for a 64yo color image and has historical importance.--Dakota 23:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak oppose Ok good picture for being 60 years old, but among the FSA-OWI collection it doesn't really stand out. See [1], [2], [3] for better examples with industrial themes. (All images are also available as larger resolution tiffs.) ~ trialsanderrors 00:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Party popper? No, I'm kidding. Thanxs for the the research into colour photos during WWII. However, how does that warrant a vote of weak oppose? The photos you suggested are not "better" in my opinion because they are not that pleasing to the eye (noise, blown highlights) and have questionable values to specific articles. Be cool and follow the bandwagon. ^_^ Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 01:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks but no thanks, not that my !vote will change the outcome anyway. If you spend some time looking at the FSA-OWI images you know that this example isn't in the top fifty; its color palette is too muted. Seemingly the sole reason for promotion is the astounding resolution, but that's something most FSA-OWI color photos share. ~ trialsanderrors 01:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
      • I looked at a couple of the pics and it seems that this example has the most vibrant colours. From the small sample of pics I saw, all the of them are of considerable poorer quality: muted colours, scratches on the original transparency, scattered jpeg artifacts, and so forth. I didn't see them all, but I sure did not see any of the "top fifty". I'm sure that high resolution isn't the only reason the pic is impressive. ;) Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 01:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
        • Just a quick run-through: [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]. Jpeg artifacts are irrelevant, the images can be converted from the lossless tiff at 100%, as is the case with this one. Manipulating 100MB tiff files is a bit too taxing for my computer, or I would post an example. ~ trialsanderrors 02:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
          • Thanks for finding all the very nice pictures. I especially like the first one. However, the colour still seems a little washed out...probably due to the lighting. The reason the picture of the B-25 turned out so nice was probably due to the intense factory lighting, with provided enough light for the early colour film to register the colour correctly. However, you seem to have found a very nice source of WWII pictures and I suggest you upload them onto Wikipedia or Commons. =) Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 04:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
            • commons:Category:FSA-OWI. Fell free to help categorizing. Only about 1/5 of the collected FSA-OWI images have cat markers as of now. ~ trialsanderrors 06:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
              • Thanxs for pointing that out. I added the category to one of the pics so far... =D Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 07:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Very good quality and interesting subject matter.--Geoffrey Gibson 01:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Hate to be the lone voice of dissent, but neither the composition (background planes get foreshortened into nothing) or the color balance (very brown) really do it for me here. Additionally, the image is only used to illustrate the airforce base and the specific plane being assembled – both of which could be better shown by other images. I believe many of the images on the FSA-OWI page linked by trialsanderrors are superior in both composition and subject matter.Spyforthemoon 18:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I found the pic on FAS-OWI and somehow it looks much duller and muddier that the version that is currently being proposed. [13] The uncompressed TIFF file is over 100mb, so I didn't get to view that file. However, all the pics on FAS-OWI seems washed out...different scanning technique? Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 04:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. I like this image, but it neither illustrates the plane nor the airport well. howcheng {chat} 21:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Uhhh because it's neither an airport nor to illustrate planes? It's a factory of WWII planes... --antilived ^{T | C | G} 04:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

And yet it is used to illustrate the articles on the plane and the airport... --Dschwen 15:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support Minor faults in composition are more than made up for with historical value. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 22:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Ack Howcheng. So old means historic value? Its an ok picture, but not an overwhelming one. The old color pics from above are much more stunning. I fail to see what the picture illustrates, apart from a hangar full of yellow planes. No details on the planes nor the construction process are visible. --Dschwen 15:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment There are quite a number of B-25 related images at the FSA-OWI collection. (Not a search term, so this link will have to do.) I like this picture of the "Sunshine assembly line" better than the one under discussion. It actually gives an impression of the assembly process. ~ trialsanderrors 00:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
    • As I mentioned above, the exact colour photo from FAS-OWI of the B-25 is of considerable poorer quality than the FP candidate.[14] According to the pic's description on the Commons, the uploader got the pic from the same source. However, pic looks substantially different...is the TIFF file cleaner? I kind of expect the same muddy picture but in much high resolution. I've contacted the uploader for clarification. Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 06:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
      • It shouldn't, but of course if the picture here was converted from the uncompressed tiff it's imaginable that the uploader also increased contrast. ~ trialsanderrors 07:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually I checked last night and it is clearly lightened. ~ trialsanderrors 20:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support per quality of picture. Sharkface217 23:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support What a great photo. Spebudmak 19:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Promoted Image:B25-mitchell-assembly.jpg Raven4x4x 02:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)