Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Boeing FA-18F Super Hornet at take off Danish Air Show 2014-06-22 aligned.jpg

File:Boeing FA-18F Super Hornet at take off Danish Air Show 2014-06-22 aligned.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Aug 2014 at 18:14:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Boeing FA-18F Super Hornet at take off Danish Air Show 2014-06-22 aligned.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Boeing FA-18F Super Hornet at take off Danish Air Show 2014-06-22 aligned.jpg

•  Info created, uploaded and nominated by --Slaunger (talk) 18:14, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
•  Info A Boeing F/A-18F Super Hornet taking off at Danish Air Show 2014. The F-18 is a seldom guest in Denmark, the last time it landed in the country was in 2009. This year it showed up at the Danish Air Show 2014 held at Air Base Karup with over 120,000 spectators (2% of the population). Probably because it is a candidate for a replacement of the existing fleet of 30 General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon. The two other candidates are the Eurofighter Typhoon and the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II. --Slaunger (talk) 18:14, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
•  Support -- Slaunger (talk) 18:14, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 07:26, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
•  Support Very good, but I would stamp out two spots (birds or whatever it is, see note). All in all the surface of the plane looks relatively soft. Did you apply some NR or is it due to shooting conditions (speed, Mitzieher)? --Tuxyso (talk) 07:43, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
•  Comment Very good shot. I also find that it looks like the noise reduction was very strong. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 09:06, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
•  Comment @Tuxyso: and @Julian Herzog: : Thanks for taking your time to scrutinize my nomination. Concerning the two spots, I have checked with other shots taken in fast sequence, and I found that the largest one was an OOF mast and the other one is a small could (which looks a little like a bird). I have now cloned them out and updated the file. Concerning the processing of the photo and your comments about possibly too aggressive noise reduction, I have now documented the editing process in great details on the file page. I always do noise reduction in the raw converter, and here the default settings are one for luminance and two for the chroma noise (range 0-20 for both settings). I have incremented the chroma noise reduction by one to three in the oploaded file. I still would not call that aggressive at all though as the maximum is 20. Initally I had problems with blown areas on the white sun-exposed landing gear and a dark "belly" of the aircraft as it is in shadows in early afternoon strong sunlight. To counteract that I have gone down 1/3 in exposure, reduced highlights almost as much as possible and boosted shadows as much as possible in the raw editor prior to jpeg conversion to get out the details of the belly. Since it is ISO 100, this did not lead to too much noise in the shadows. I think that a modest DOF combined with a bit of motion blur from panning (not much though as the shutter speed of 1/400 s is still relatively fast) gives the washed out effect of the foreground and a little less pronounced in the background.. For me it helps separate the main subject from background and foreground. And it also gives a feeling of action. --Slaunger (talk) 15:27, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Probably you can try selective (only for shadow parts) noise reduction techniques for future shots. --Tuxyso (talk) 09:37, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
    • @Tuxyso: Thanks for the suggestion. I have a slight practical problem with doing selective noise reduction using my existing tools. The NR in my Canon raw converter works only on the entire image, and for my postprocessing editing tools (GIMP) there are no tools out of the box (as far as I know), except for selective Gaussian blur, which is a too primitive algorithm. I have read there are some GIMP plugins around for doing more sophisticated NR, e.g., separating between luminance and chroma NR using sophisticated algorithm. It appears they are not so easy to use, but maybe I should just 'bite the bullet' and learn how to use them. --Slaunger (talk) 15:30, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
      • The easiest and best solution for selective NR I found yet is the tool Dfine from the Nik-Tools (no surreptitious advertising, I really like it). By manual setting of control points you can include / exclude similiar image areas from noise reduction. Example: Without selective NR this photo would have excessive noise on the sky or the main motive had not been sharp. --Tuxyso (talk) 07:32, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
        • Thanks for the advice, Tuxyso. It is a very remarkable photo you are referencing to, and the tutorial was very instructive and impressive to see. I am currently considering a significant upgrade of my editing tools and gear, and this is valuable input in my considerations. --Slaunger (talk) 16:17, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
•  Support Yes, makes sense. The large resolution is also slightly misleading. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 16:22, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 10:53, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
•  Support Good shot! --Halavar (talk) 22:11, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --LivioAndronico talk 20:04, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 08:45, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --Graphium 14:37, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
•  Support Poco² 17:44, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 23:05, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Vehicles