Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Trinity shot color.jpg

Image:Etretat 07 August 2005 036.jpg, not featured

•  Nominate

Urban 16:26, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

•  Support YolanC 22:01, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
•  Oppose Dull colors Andreas Tille 07:01, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
•  Oppose Lighting not excellent. Peregrine981 05:04, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
•  Oppose bad lighting -- Gorgo 00:48, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
•  Support. --Hautala 16:21, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
•  Support -- ADSR6581 20:06, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
•  Oppose -- User:Skinmate 17:28, 21. August 2005 (UTC)
•  Oppose--Shizhao 12:23, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

3 support, 5 oppose => not featured--Shizhao 06:23, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Image:Trinity shot color.jpg, not featured

•  Nominate

One of the only color photographs of the first atomic bomb explosion, the Trinity test of July 16, 1945. Very hi-res photo, to the point where you can see the limitations of both the color photography of the day, much less one where the lighting was extraordinarily problematic (to say the least). Still, I think it adds a certain amount of atmosphere and character to this historic shot, though I could understand if people saw it only as a defect. I also like that it is a bit off-center; I think it makes it a far more "artistic" shot than the more clinical full-on shots (i.e. Image:Trinity explosion.jpg, which bores me to tears). Fastfission 16:10, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

•  Support Fastfission 16:10, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
•  Oppose Urban 16:36, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
•  Oppose it's somehow too artistic for me, e.g. Image:Nuclear fireball.jpg is a much nicer picture to me -- Gorgo 22:07, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

• Nicer in what sense? I nominated this one specifically because it was artistic -- it reflects a time when the atomic bomb was a mystical new thing, rather than something which had been tested a thousand times around the world. But beauty is in the eye of the beholder, of course. --Fastfission 02:29, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

•  Oppose Fastfission... sorry i don't find it that informative has you found. Maybe you know much more than me. But for a common eye, this pic doesnt say a lot. --PedroPVZ 00:07, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

• I didn't say it was informative, I said it was historic and artistic. But to each their own. --Fastfission 02:28, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

•  Oppose I'm tempted to support, but the image confuses me on a number of levels. Like, what's with the red clouds? --Quasipalm 15:10, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

• Probably the reflection of the blast, or an anomaly of the film itself. --Fastfission 02:28, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

•  Oppose -- Get_It • 15:31, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
•  Support - I'm going to support, though I'm not exactly sure if I should. This is certainly an interesting shot in a historical perspective, but as mentioned not grabbing in a featured kind of way. I don't suppose there's any clear policy about the value of historically interesting shots. However, we did feature the "first" photo ever, even though it is really crummy, so based on that precedent, this is worthy. Agree with most arguments advanced by Fastfission. Peregrine981 10:16, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
•  Oppose --Atamari 21:05, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
•  Oppose. --Hautala 16:19, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
•  Oppose--Massimo Finizio 20:29, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
•  Support --zero 03:45PM (GMT -06:00), 22 August 2005 (UTC)- I have to support this one, excellent historical value - but the description should explain the photo and why it looks like it does

3 support, 8 oppose => not featured--Shizhao 06:22, 23 August 2005 (UTC)