Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ronald and Nancy Reagan NASA 1982.jpg

File:Ronald and Nancy Reagan NASA 1982.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Nov 2016 at 10:39:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Ronald and Nancy Reagan NASA 1982.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ronald and Nancy Reagan NASA 1982.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
•  Info created by NASA - uploaded by Ely1 - nominated by User:ely1 -- Ely1 (talk) 10:39, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
•  Support -- Ely1 (talk) 10:39, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
•  Support lNeverCry 10:46, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
•  SupportGoodmorninghpvn (talk) 11:28, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
•  Support - Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:41, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose I'm not impressed. Perhaps you need to be American? This small image is soft, dirty and they are much in shadow / harsh light. They are two of the most professionally photographed people on the planet. -- Colin (talk) 12:50, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

  @Colin: What I like about it is that the 1st Lady seems genuinely interested/awed by the ship, and Pres. Reagan looks to be making an off-the-cuff remark. You get so much staging and choreographing with what presidents and first ladies do that's it's a bit of a surprise sometimes to see spontaneous behavior. But you and the other opposers are right that the technical/visual excellence needed for FP just isn't here. lNeverCry 02:37, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

  INeverCry your answer reinforce Colin's text. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton ^m 12:41, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

•  Oppose Poor composition and low EV --The Photographer 13:24, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose Poor lighting. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:35, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose not good --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 15:49, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose simply not FP for me. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 17:13, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose Too high contrast between light and shadow, needs to have small scratches restored. Not a sufficently good composition. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:04, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per Colin, Slaunger, and others. lNeverCry 02:37, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose Nothing specific here. --Mile (talk) 07:19, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose A moment from a bygone era, unfortunately so is the quality of the photo. Perhaps if someone did a bit of gentle restoration of it. --cart-Talk 11:01, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per so many others, but bad color most foremost. Daniel Case (talk) 15:44, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose nothing stands out here. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton ^m 12:37, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Alternative version (sort of)

•  Info Just for the fun of it (and since I mentioned it above), I did a restored version of this photo. So 'pinging' @Ely1: @Goodmorninghpvn: @Ikan Kekek: @Colin: @INeverCry: @The Photographer: @King of Hearts: @Villy Fink Isaksen: @Alchemist-hp: @Slaunger: @PetarM: @Daniel Case: to let you know. cart-Talk 19:10, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose Nice improvement, W.carter! It adds value! But, well, it does not change my mind about the basic mertis of the photograph when it comes to light and composition. (I am not even sure you want us to vote again?) -- Slaunger (talk) 19:15, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

• Slaunger Naw, I didn't think as far as voting. ;) I've restored so many of my own photos of the same format from this era, so I just did this one to see what it would look like. This is not my nom, but if someone finds it useful, be my guest. :) --cart-Talk 19:22, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

• Ahh, striking my vote then. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:32, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

 Question What tool are you using for NR?, I can see severals problems with this tecnique. You should apply differents methods for noise reduction in hight ISO, negative film "noise" and jpg artifacts --The Photographer 19:19, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

• I used different methods for different areas since I wanted to disrupt the original as little as possible. First a couple of thousand dabs with the clone brush at 400% to fill in the white cracks and spots, color and contrast correction, then a very mild normal Elements noise reduction and some individual small blur touches with the brush at 200% and finally isolated the sky and made an additional Elements NR. I'm sure you have some fantastic program and gadgets to do this job better, I'm just an amateur restorer having fun. :) --cart-Talk 19:33, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

•  Oppose An improvement technically but the composition still doesn't work for me. Sorry. Daniel Case (talk) 22:25, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
•  Support - This is marginally better, especially in the sky. Both versions are problematic in a number of ways. I support this photo for historical reasons, but everyone's criticisms of the technical and some compositional problems in the photo are accurate and also largely apply to this restoration. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:48, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

• cart you saved one more, 8×8 cm photo. Theese old shots are pleasure to see. But i still cant support as FP, since composition, light arent well here. So its more valuable - Reagan adoring Space Shuttle or something similar. You also put some work for this, well done in any case. --Mile (talk) 06:19, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

•  Oppose still not FP for me. The main: the composition don't works for me. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 07:50, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
•  Support --Karelj (talk) 23:03, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose Although it is cleaned up, my other objections stand. -- Colin (talk) 08:36, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:13, 8 November 2016 (UTC)