- Comment I agree that this is a fantastic image, but it does need a lot of restoration work. I suggest you bring it over to the graphics lab if none of the restorationists here are interested. wadester16 | Talk→ 01:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with Wadester. Suspension for restoration is a good idea. SpencerT♦Nominate! 01:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I do think that this photograph would benefit from a little Photoshop TLC. I could take a whack at it, I'll upload the alternative when I'm finished. Let me know if you think it's better or worse. Rfcarter (talk) 03:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suspended until restored. wadester16 | Talk→ 03:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Link: Requested on graphics lab here for some attention. — raeky (talk | edits) 05:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think I found my new wallpaper. I've been looking for a high res image of this but never did find one. Cheers! P.S. leaving the picture in suspension just in case someone has something to add to it. Victorrocha (talk) 04:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Nicely done. Thanks for the help. Feel free to vote if you'd like. wadester16 05:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Unsuspended after original was restored. Seven days starts.... NOW! wadester16 05:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support Edit Fantastic image, great restoration, awesome EV = Definite support. wadester16 05:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Oppose Still a lot of streaking. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 11:40, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Out of curiosity where is the streaking you are referring to? I will try to get rid of it when I have time. Thanks. Victorrocha (talk) 19:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think, but am not sure, that he means the peculiar vertical lighter/darker bands. Stare at the thumb and look for unusual darkening as you move horizontally across the cloud...--HereToHelp (talk to me) 19:45, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's correct. They're clearly not part of theexplosion: They're straight verstical, and extend outside the cloud. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hm.... I guessed I was looking too closely for spots to notice that. That's a lot of work to remove that, if it's even possible without diminishing the quality of the photograph. Victorrocha (talk) 06:00, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd say they are inherent parts of the photograph that aren't worth the time or effort to try to "remove", kind of like the reflections off the window in this. But then again, I'm no restorationist. wadester16 15:26, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's more like an artifact from the scanning, but to get a better scanned version of this may prove impossible. Likewise it's probably very difficult to near impossible to remove it. — raeky (talk | edits) 13:39, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I could be completely wrong, but a lot of these detonation images were partially or completely lost due to gamma radiation. Fortunately, they shot a shedload more than that and this is one of the most pristine. It's likely that those streaks are due to minor fogging, basically, which would be on the negative and actually quite intereting from an enc POV if it could be established as fact. --mikaultalk 13:18, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- From looking at other versions of this image the same streak's seem to be present, although the other versions are lower quality and could possibly origniate from this same scan, but it's entirely possible the streaks are on the negative giving credence to the fogging hypothesis. It definitely would add to the EV of the picture if this could be confirmed as the source of the streaks... — raeky (talk | edits) 07:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- According to this reference from a first-hand person working with the photography on the islands states almost all the film was damaged/destroyed by radiation fogging and that a special chemical technique had to be developed to save much of the images. That was for the Bravo shot though, but it does give more credence to the streaking on this image possibly being from radiation fogging. — raeky (talk | edits) 18:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Right, that's very interesting! Wyckoff was an early pioneer in HDR imaging where he used upto three layers of film to capture a wider dynamic range. His "burning off" layers of emulsion to save the image doesn't make sense unless you appreciate that... I'll do some reading and get back. It does make the streaking a very small price to pay, needless to say. --mikaultalk 21:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support--Mbz1 (talk) 14:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support edit A job well done.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 19:45, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support edit Good job editing. Great wow factor, definitely one of Wikipedia's finest. RMelon (talk) 16:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Fantastic image. Seddσn talk 01:42, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per RMelon. Mostlyharmless (talk) 02:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: the explosion was captured in its entirety with no noticeable obstructions. Alexius08 (talk) 05:33, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Question The image page of the original gives the Library of Congress as the source, but (as far as I can see) the LoC doesn't have a version at this resolution on its website - is this an offline LoC version or is it from another source? Time3000 (talk) 14:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Someone sourced a larger image and added it to the page on 5-1-09, they didn't state where they sourced the larger image, but it is clearly the same image as the one linked on the LoC version, from a copyright standpoint I'm fairly sure that isn't an issue, the image is clearly a work of the us government? — raeky (talk | edits) 14:27, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Yes, I can't see copyright being a problem. Time3000 (talk) 09:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Ka-boom!!! Daniel Case (talk) 02:21, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Historically important.. and stunning!! -- Ϫ 06:01, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support EV through the roof, great quality all things considered. Spiral5800 (talk) 08:31, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Awesome! (In all senses of the word.) Sophus Bie (talk) 10:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral It's very interesting, but I have to agree with Shoemaker (but not enough to full oppose). SpencerT♦Nominate! 17:23, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support edited version. Indeed, one of the finest pictures. M.K. (talk) 21:16, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support edit - lots of EV, lots of wow, unimportant technical issues. - Peripitus (Talk) 23:16, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support The edited version is amazing. Bernstein2291 (talk) 00:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Conflict-of-interested Support - Too bad the streaking in the top couldn't be fixed, but man, is that a great shot or what. Great restoration in the rest of the shot though. NW (Talk) 21:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support TomStar81 (Talk) 02:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:Operation Crossroads Baker Edit.jpg Hopefully nobody is bothered by the fact that I closed this nom, even though I supported it. But it's been open a while, and the consensus couldn't be any more obvious. --wadester16 04:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
.jpg)
