Comment Is "upside down" more enc, or more "zero grav"..? It looks fine (and is easier on the neck!) the other way up. As far as FP goes, there are so many of this kind of shot that I'm inclined to be extra strict on the criteria. It's a little bit flat (could use a small curves tweak) and the tail is cut off (not a huge big deal, but might be if it ever needed a clipping path) Other than that it's pretty cool. Might support a rotated version, certainly a less cropped one.
mikaultalk09:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose - NASA has set a very high bar for themselves, and this image doesn't measure up IMO. Too washed-out, inverted subject hurts enc, and cut off tail. --TotoBaggins18:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)reply
That was actually what I was disputing. What do you base your colorcorrection on? The Shuttle tiles are yellow/orange in your edit. I would think that NASA isn't completely moronic about calibrating their images, and in fact the original looks more natural to me. Please don't take this the wrong way, but have you had a look at the calibration charts at the top of this page? Is your monitor maybe adjusted a bit too cold? --
Dschwen23:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)reply
point taken, but it certainly is easier to see cockpit details in the rotated version, this could be useful in the case someone wanted to label such details, most definitely encyclopedic
Bleh99922:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment Is "upside down" more enc, or more "zero grav"..? It looks fine (and is easier on the neck!) the other way up. As far as FP goes, there are so many of this kind of shot that I'm inclined to be extra strict on the criteria. It's a little bit flat (could use a small curves tweak) and the tail is cut off (not a huge big deal, but might be if it ever needed a clipping path) Other than that it's pretty cool. Might support a rotated version, certainly a less cropped one.
mikaultalk09:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose - NASA has set a very high bar for themselves, and this image doesn't measure up IMO. Too washed-out, inverted subject hurts enc, and cut off tail. --TotoBaggins18:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)reply
That was actually what I was disputing. What do you base your colorcorrection on? The Shuttle tiles are yellow/orange in your edit. I would think that NASA isn't completely moronic about calibrating their images, and in fact the original looks more natural to me. Please don't take this the wrong way, but have you had a look at the calibration charts at the top of this page? Is your monitor maybe adjusted a bit too cold? --
Dschwen23:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)reply
point taken, but it certainly is easier to see cockpit details in the rotated version, this could be useful in the case someone wanted to label such details, most definitely encyclopedic
Bleh99922:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)reply