Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Aerospike engine

Aerospike XRS-2200 engine

Reason: Good heavens this image is filthy. You'd be hard pressed to find a single area of this image that's free of heavy grainyness, or for that matter an area that's even in focus!
Nominator: ⁪froth^{T C}

Delist — ⁪froth^{T C} 09:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - nothing that can't be fixed. Hi-res enough to be FP quality at half size, where the specks aren't visible. ed g2s • talk 16:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well then it needs to be fixed and you should be voting to replace it with an edit, not voting for the original. --⁪froth^{T C} 19:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ stunning picture; since this was probably shot on photographic film, the graininess and scratches aren't that unusual (especially if you look at it that close). -Wutschwlllm 19:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure you see just how bad it is. This focus is just one random spot at full size --⁪froth^{T C} 19:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep filtered but not downsampled version Changed my vote because of the edits -Wutschwlllm 16:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, very minor issues aren't enough to warrant delisting. Noclip 21:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delist I have to agree with the nom on this. The image looks very dirty, there are a lot of speckles (word?) and I see a large dirt smear on the photo. This evidence leads me to delist. — Arjun 21:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Grain and focus problems are not that bad, especially when downsampled to typical monitor resolutions. And no, we should not replace it with a downsampled version because we would be throwing away detail along with the noise. It could benefit from some light retouching on the scratches. —Dgies^t c 21:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very encyclopedic pic. It's grainy due to the super high res and no, it should not be downsized (per Dgies). Jumping cheese^Cont@ct 12:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Small specks are easily removed with a filter. This is a really minor issue. ed g2s • talk 12:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The filter eliminated most of the speckles but the image is still dirty. Except for the actual flame, everything is blurry, badly oversampled, or smeared (dirty lens?). Check out focus 2. --⁪froth^{T C} 22:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - striking and interesting. --Deglr6328 12:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep edit 2 - seems just fine now. Debivort 08:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but replace with edited and downsampled version. I'm not quite convinced that any meaningful detail is lost in this case after downsampling from 3000x2361 to 1500x1181 pixels as the original is so grainy and soft. --KFP (talk | contribs) 12:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - agree with user Dgies's comments. --Aqua 09:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/ Downsampled version This picture is too interesting to delete. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 20:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The image is obviously going to be replaced with one of the edits, but I need some more opinions on whether to go with the downsampled one or the filtered one. Could anyone who hasn't commented here please do so? Raven4x4x 05:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Downsampled then --⁪froth^T 08:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep larger edit. Per Dgies. --Tewy 01:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep downsampled as above. Debivort 01:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep downsampled per everyone. Noclip 22:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep downsampled Circeus 23:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep orignal, delete downsampled. Downsampling is simply destroying information, ... the images are already used downsampled in our article... No need for an extra pass of processing. --Gmaxwell 21:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kept downsampled. Trebor 21:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]