Space Shuttle Columbia launching

Promoted back in 2004. Grainy, and looks like it went through some kind of dithering filter. Redquark 03:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC) reply

• Nominate and delist. - Redquark 03:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• delist You're right, it almost looks like a scan from a magazine. -- Bridgecross 14:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Have you considered that the graininess could be caused by using very fast film so as to avoid motion blur? -- Dgies 16:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Comment This is the first image of the first shuttle mission. Considering the date (1981) and historical value of it, it deserves FP statue. BUT, the graininess is way too much. I tried to reduce it with Photoshop but it caused other problems (such as blur on some very grainy parts). Maybe Fir can give it a try. I might retry. Although there is much better images of shuttle launch of course, this one has a historical importance though. Arad 02:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep Historically valuable. Sharkface217 01:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep Either with preference for replacement with my edit (Edit 1) -- Fir0002 05:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep, but replace with edit 1 - Well done, Fir!. -- Janke | Talk 07:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Weak keep edit 1. It's still very grainy, and the exhaust is blown. But very historically significant.-- Here T oHelp 23:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Oppose replacement with edit, the edit blurred out a lot of detail while trying to get rid of the grain--the top of the shuttle looks shiny smooth and the lettering on the wing is blurry. It reminds me of a hyper-retouched model with shiny smooth skin. Night Gyr ( talk/ Oy) 00:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep - it is simply a picture of a highly important moment in the history of mankind Booksworm Talk to me! 15:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep Edit 1, as the editing is definately an improvement. -- RandomOrca2 23:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Comment edit 2. I saw Fir's work and thought it looked more noisey in places, and that the artificial sharpening was overdone. So, I gave a try and reducing the noise.-- Andrew c 20:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep. I don't care which one you keep, but absolutely keep it! It's really the only picture we'll get of the white ET. → JARED  ^(t)  22:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep Original - Per historical exemption. Flaws aren't that bad. Edit 1 loses resolution and manages to blur the shuttle too much. Edit 2 is overly retouched and the clouds are very fake looking. -- Dgies 05:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC) reply
  • I agree that my edit made the clouds look weird, so I have reuploaded an earlier version that retains some of the 'helpful' noise in the clouds. -- Andrew c 16:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep I prefer the first one, like people above have said we need to keep this picture in out database.--¿ Why 1 9 9 1 ^{ESP. | Sign Here} 17:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC) reply
  • You realize that the image will still be around, just not marked as featured anymore? This isn't deletion. Night Gyr ( talk/ Oy) 05:36, 22 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep per reasons stated above. s d 3 1 4 1 5 Happy Holidays! 19:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep Keep! Great picture. Peeps are too picky. -- Tobyw87 09:12, 22 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep (the original one) because of historical value. -- Bricktop 13:57, 25 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep edit 1 or 2 I thought the grain in the original were stars at first glance! | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 11:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Retained the original image Raven4x4x 01:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC) reply