- Reason
- I thought it looked promising picture to be a featured picture and this image is in the public domain and meeting all the standards.
- Articles this image appears in
- Sukhoi Su-30MKI
- Creator
- Indianhilbilly
- Support as nominator -- Alokprasad84 ( talk) 07:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose. Grainy, unsharp, plane itself of low resolution (even though whole photo meets requirements). Pstuart84 Talk 18:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose The shot is actually quite good visually, but technically, the noise is far beyond what is acceptable. Given the lighting, there seems no reson for there to be such noise. EXIF data says the image was taken as ISO100 yet noise suggests a setting of ISO 800 or more. A shame. Capital photographer ( talk) 10:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Could be an FP, but WAY too grainy. Spencer T♦ C 01:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I gave it a try, and removed the grain. diego_pmc ( talk) 20:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- Regretful Oppose The plane's alignment relative to the viewer is superb, but both are too grainy. The first is pretty obvious, and the edit still has too much. (look at the three objects coming out of the tailing edge of the plane's right wing) Thingg ⊕ ⊗ 04:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Not promoted MER-C 10:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- Reason
- I thought it looked promising picture to be a featured picture and this image is in the public domain and meeting all the standards.
- Articles this image appears in
- Sukhoi Su-30MKI
- Creator
- Indianhilbilly
- Support as nominator -- Alokprasad84 ( talk) 07:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose. Grainy, unsharp, plane itself of low resolution (even though whole photo meets requirements). Pstuart84 Talk 18:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose The shot is actually quite good visually, but technically, the noise is far beyond what is acceptable. Given the lighting, there seems no reson for there to be such noise. EXIF data says the image was taken as ISO100 yet noise suggests a setting of ISO 800 or more. A shame. Capital photographer ( talk) 10:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Could be an FP, but WAY too grainy. Spencer T♦ C 01:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I gave it a try, and removed the grain. diego_pmc ( talk) 20:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- Regretful Oppose The plane's alignment relative to the viewer is superb, but both are too grainy. The first is pretty obvious, and the edit still has too much. (look at the three objects coming out of the tailing edge of the plane's right wing) Thingg ⊕ ⊗ 04:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Not promoted MER-C 10:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)