A bow view of the battleship USS IOWA (BB-61) firing its Mark 7 16-inch/50-caliber guns off the starboard side during a fire power demonstration.
Reason
Its awesome, its got a unique angle, it looks good, it clearly demonstrates a bow, its hi res, a lot of people like it, and it really does a good job of grabbing attention on the page battleship.
No, I mean the light band ~ 1365 pixels from left. It looks like a scan arifact, but it's subtle enough that I'm not assuming anything yet. J Are you green?05:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, ok, I see it (Actually, I see two :) My guess is that the one on the left is from stitching; based on the other version of this photo I found the additional firepower on the left is (or was) cropped at one point, so I assume that line is probably where the cropper drew his line, so to speak. I don't see it to be a huge deal, it should be fairly easy to crop the image and remove the line (incidently, that may help the nomination in the long run by centering on the battleship, which is the subject of the photo). As for the one on the ship, I am not sure about that one (stitching maybe?). At any rate good catch, I missed that the first time around. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I scanned the pic for like five minutes before I saw the very very faint vertical line down the battleship. I spent another 10 minutes before I spot what I think is the second line (?) about a cannon length from the muzzle. I'm not even sure if that's the line you're talking about. Frankly, those lines are extremely minor flaws...I see the noise level as a more significant flaw. Those lines are definitely not from stitching errors (no shift...only a faint line), but probably from a less than perfect scan. JumpingcheeseCont@ct07:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmph, I go staight to the source for the hi res version and it has flaws (Oh, the irony :). Yeah, the second line is about cannon length from the muzzle, and was the line I thought had caught J's eye the first time around. It was only after the third time of looking over the image that I relized that the line I had found was to far to the left to be the one original refernced, thats when I spotted the other one. This is coming straight off the Defense media link website; I find it hard to believe they would put a less than perfect scan up, although for all I know the photo could have been doctored. The line to the left is not a big issue, we could cut off that half of the photo and not lose anything particularly important, but the line in the middle would remain a problem. Is there any way to fix it/them, or is the photo beyond all hope? TomStar81 (Talk) 07:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very impressive and striking pic. The only technical problem I can see is the slight noise, but clearly understandable for a scan at 2354 × 3000. As I mentioned above, I don't see the faint line(s) as a significant or even an obviously noticeable flaw. My main issue with the pic is that there is already a similar pic awarded with FP status (to the right). However, in my opinion, this pic is more awe-striking and taken at a better angle. Both pic deserves FP status, but the current nomination deserves it even more. The pic is definitely not doctored (in my armature observation) and I don't believe that a it should be cropped in any fashion. No need to obsesses over a faint line down the center. It's not noticeable unless intentionally searched for (or if you have superduper sharp eyes). Also...encyclopedic pic. JumpingcheeseCont@ct08:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In all good faith, can I ask: is this a valid reason to oppose? I realise the criteria specify "the best of a given subject", but do we take this to be an exclusive or inclusive "best"? We could take it to the talk page if you like. mikaultalk21:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great shot (per comments above) not brilliantly presented but not bad either. I'm fairly sure it's a scanned print – see non-digital retouching spots on that thin vertical line, towards the bottom of the frame. The line itself is almost certainly a scratch on the original negative caused by abrasive dust in the camera film guides, which are typically very fine and parallel to the frame sides; there may well be (a lot) more than one, that's just the deepest of them. Techinically, it looks a bit dodgy at 100% but it would be just fine in repro. We can't judge film scans by digital tech criteria, they're very different things on a computer monitor. mikaultalk21:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, the ship is off center... which would be fine except for the fire from the cannons is cropped. And I don't think it adds so much to any of the articles its in. grenグレン03:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very dramatic and enc. Too bad about the cropping and lack of sharpness, but the subject matter makes up for it. The image quality of the current FP is just as bad, but it too is so dramatic that it deserves its status. --TotoBaggins23:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The current FP is much better bringing more information as it show the effect of the schockwave on sea surface. Ericd08:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Very interesting image with good resolution, but the image is a little bit blurry and there seems to be a white line running vertically through the center of it. ANNAfoxlover18:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. It is a very good picture, with a few very minor flaws, and the fact that there is already one featured picture of a battleship firing, makes no difference. Dreamy00:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Amazing picture, bad sadly has a lack of sharpness Booksworm Sprechen-sie Koala? 08:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)