Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Apollo 11 liftoff from launch tower camera (second nomination)

Reason: This is an image of the first instants of one of the most significant expeditions in the history of the world. The composition is visually impressive and imparts an impression of ponderous size yet violent motion [per User:Elipongo's original nomination in October 2008]
Articles this image appears in: Saturn V
Creator: NASA

Support as nominator This was taken earlier in the launch sequence than the image rejected in the October 2008 nomination. By comparison, this version has far greater resolution and sharpness with apparently no vibration or compression artifacts. --Pointillist (talk) 12:06, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suspend until someone does a restored version. There are a few scratches (mostly long and vertical - probably on the negative), dust, fixer stains etc. - nothing that couldn't be sorted with a bit of work. There's also a strange pattern in the top-right - out of curiosity, does anyone know what it is? Time3000 (talk) 15:02, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks like it could be from a clip used to hold the negative or print to dry. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξ φ 19:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with the above posters--much better than the first nom (which, by the position of the arm, was taken a few seconds after this one) but still in need of restoration. Done right, this could certainly pass.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 21:51, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What are the rules/goals/limits for restoration in a case like this? The sharpness is OK and the dynamic range is broadly right, though of course I could selectively pep it up using masks. There are some flaws in the image, but as it isn't certain which ones come from the original film exposure/processing vs. subsequent scanning, I'm not sure what to do! BTW I have a coolscan and some experience of retouching kodachrome and vericolor in photoshop ...it's just that I don't know how much a historic image should be tampered with. - Pointillist (talk) 22:14, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hm. There's actually quite a lot of dust and scratches and stains. I'll have a go at it tomorrow. I'd also be interested to know the exact provenance of this: scan of a negative? First generation? Second generation? Media? -- Michel Vuijlsteke (talk) 22:44, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK this was downloaded from NASA's great images site. The description there doesn't talk about the equipment or provenance. You might expect NASA to use a motorised Hasselblad but this image isn't mentioned on the Hasselblad in Space page and the scanned size is 4:5 (= 6:7.5) which is non-standard for roll film, isn't it? As for the original stock, maybe they used negative (C22?) because it's more forgiving about highlights but that's just a guess. - Pointillist (talk) 23:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most of this goes right over my head, but at least remove the dust and scratches.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 13:29, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Edit 1 -- I removed dust and scratches and the weird artefacts in the top right corner. Did not touch the noise or the crop. -- Michel Vuijlsteke (talk) 16:49, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support edit 1. Nicely done, Michel.--ragesoss (talk) 16:05, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support edit 1 Per above. The technical quality is acceptable by period standards.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 20:48, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Apollo 11 Launch2.jpg --Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 02:57, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]