B-1 Lancer at Night

I saw this photo and immediately liked it, so here it is. Its a public domain photo (USAF property), and appears in the article B-1 Lancer.

• Nominate and support. TomStar81 ( Talk) 02:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Oppose. The frontal view and monochromatic color scheme prevent me from seeing what this aircraft looks like. I would prefer that the picture be taken at more of an angle to the side, and in more light. -- Tewy 03:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Oppose. Interesting image, for sure, but not that encyclopedic. A day shot that shows more of the subject would work much better. Why is it a night shot? In addition to reducing detail and visibility, you get more noise and the weird lens flares from the lighting. -- Andrew c 03:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
  • We already have a day shot, thats why I decided to try a night shot. I think the night shots are more spectacular than the day shots, to me they look cooler and add a sense of awe that the planes utterly lack when photographed in the daylight; however, past noms have clearly shown a daylight prefernce when it comes to aircraft photos. In this case I pretty much knew right from the start that no one was going to support the picture due to the fact the photo was taken at night, but I decided to go ahead with it any way. Miracles do happen, after all. TomStar81 ( Talk) 04:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Oppose reluctantly. I think it's an attractive picture, one of the few that might make my desktop, but it just isn't encyclopedic enough. I wish we had a "pretty pictures" category. Terri G 11:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
  • We do have a "pretty" category: The Commons. Remembers, lack of encyclopedic value here does not constitute a failure of criteria there. TomStar81 ( Talk) 19:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Oppose, like the KC-135 picture a while back, it's pretty, but the very things that make it pretty take away from the encyclopedic value. Night Gyr ( talk/ Oy) 16:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Oppose Sub-par lighting for no reason, not particularly encyclopedic, not even centered with a simple crop. Staxringold _talk ^contribs 22:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Oppose sorry, poor lighting and angle - Advanced 07:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Oppose. Really cool, but it just doesn't illustrate it's subject well enough to be a featured pic. Nice try, though :-) Ilikefood 18:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Not promoted -- Fir0002 06:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC) reply