Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Nagasakibomb.jpg

Nagasakibomb.jpg[edit]

Reason: I came across this image while I was looking for information about WWII. I was very surprised that this image was not already featured, as it is an image of the atomic bombing of Nagasaki. Therefore, it is historical and very encyclopedic. It also provides a lot of value to the articles it illustrates, as it shows an important event in the history of our world. I also think it is somewhat unique, as I doubt we'll find another image from that same angle of the bomb. I think this explains why it meets the criteria.
Proposed caption: The mushroom cloud caused by the detonation of the "Fat Man" bomb during the atomic bombing of Nagasaki, Japan in 1945, rising approximately 18 kilometers (11 mi) above the hypocenter.
Articles this image appears in: Nuclear Bomb and World War II, amongst many others.
Creator: U.S. Federal Government. More specifically, the picture was taken from one of the B-29 Superfortresses used in the attack.

Support as nominator Boricuaeddie 02:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support All--Mbz1 02:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]

Mbz1 has stated here: "...i will vote to oppose no value pictures and i will vote to support value pictures no matter what quality they are." This is contrary to voting procedure. -Fcb981^{(talk:contribs)} 14:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC) [reply]
- Not really; I mean, a low-quality image of an easy subject is low-value anyway. I presume he's referring to valuable historical images. Adam Cuerden ^talk 04:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, not only historical images, but also astronomical images, underwater images and any interesting, hard to get images that add lots of value to the articles they are in, but cannot make it out for FP because of quality problems. We have featured many very nice bugs pictures, but do we really have to have so many dragonflies for example? Yes, they are sharp, yes, they are different kind, yet they all are dragonflies and they all look alike. I guess I'd like to find out how many of these kind of images are too many?On the other hand a wild and unique underwater shot gets rejected because of quality problems. We have no shots like this in FP. If later one would become available, we always could delist low quality one. In my opinion Wikipedia viewers would appreciate some rare shots even, if the quality is low.--Mbz1 20:40, 26 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
    - Seriously agree with this. What is UP with all the bug FPs? Mcrawford620 22:15, 26 August 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Weak Support - It's rather grainy; I don't suppose there's any better versions floating around? I do think this should be FP, but, well, might as well use the best possible copy of it. Adam Cuerden ^talk 05:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the photo, support the idea of it. This particular photo just is too grainy. Staxringold _talk^contribs 05:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, what did you expect? It's an aerial picture of an atomic bomb in 1945, not a photo of the guy in the corner with a Minolta 110 Zoom SLR :-) Seriously, though, I'll try to look for a better version. --Boricuaeddie 10:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- I did a Google search and the only images I found were this one ([1] [2]) and the same one from a different angle ([3]). I think this one's best. --Boricuaeddie 10:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
um why are atomic booms here 69.57.207.162 (talk) 19:49, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - for the reasons stated in my previous nomination of that historically significant, and stunning picture. Mikeo 19:00, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support original. "Higher resolution" image has exactly the same grain size (which is probably film grain), and its contrast is too high. Visually and technically much better than Image:Atomic_cloud_over_Hiroshima.jpg, which as far as film and situation available, should be just as good. Yes, the Hiroshima image is in lower resolution (so the original may be far better), but from looking at the two I strongly suspect that the Nagasaki image is simply a really well done image of a mushroom cloud taken from a plane in the bombing run. Enuja 21:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support, technical quality is of less importance for unique historical images taken under "field" conditions. This was one of only two atomic bombings in history (to date -- knock on wormwood) and it is doubtful that any photography exists of higher quality. --Dhartung | Talk 23:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support original The high res version looses a lot of details due to the sharper contrast. Very encyclopedic and historical pic. I've seen this pic several times in my history textbooks (as with several other promoted featured pics) and it's certainly iconic of the horrific close of WWII. Jumping cheese 23:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support original Historic value outdoes graininess. -- Chris.B 10:30, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The best available, and we can't very well say no. --⁪froth^t 18:36, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on grounds of quality. I don't know where the recurring idea comes from, that the exception to criterion #1, "If it is considered impossible to find a technically superior image of a given subject, lower quality may sometimes be allowed" translates to "we should promote whatever happens to be the best representation of any particular subject, however narrowly defined". If we were to apply that argument in all cases, FP would be meaningless and populated by very poor quality images, and no-one will browse them. Perhaps we should have a separate category for Most Important Historic Images: but to dilute FP with it is harmful to the entire concept of FP in my opinion. Many subjects have no possible FP, because no image likely to absorb the viewer exists, and that is that. I admit that this image is compelling and shocking because of its horrifying context, but I believe there are better pictures depicting the devastation of Nagasaki (for historical significance) and better pictures of mushrooms clouds (for technical enc value). Sorry for the rant. ~ Veledan • T 23:22, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very historic, quitly it good for a short exposer from the time period. Chris H 04:34, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support original Per above. ^8thstar 05:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ on grounds of quality. There is too much grain for a photographer who used top camera and and film for that era. The fact that it was impossible to meter the light should not be taken in account. If it really was impossible to photograph the Nagasaki bomb with accurate exposure, then there is quite simply no possible FP of the Nagasaki bomb. Ericd 19:05, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - ""If it is considered impossible to find a technically superior image of a given subject, lower quality may sometimes be allowed" translates to "we should promote whatever happens to be the best representation of any particular subject, however narrowly defined". If we were to apply that argument in all cases, FP would be meaningless and populated by very poor quality images.". However it might be populated by a bunch of interesting images instead of high quality boring images. Ericd 19:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I support Ericd's position here. I just can't be bothered to open up the next FP of a pretty flower or a bee, however technically perfect they may be. This, however ... this is one of the defining moments of human history. All of it. For me, it has enormous power to travel across time and grab me.--Dhartung | Talk 07:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well, I stop joking. Ericd 09:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support Either. I personally prefer the higher contrast, but if detail is lost, then the original works fine. --NauticaShad e s 00:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- - Comment I strongly support the low contrast version. From a technical POV the low contrast version is better it carries more information has more tone of greys. Aesthetically the high contrast version may seem more "pleasant" as high contrast suggest violence. But I don't think aesthetic considerations should prime here. Ericd 09:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - The problem is that most people have uncorrected displays so they can't see the shadow detail in darker b/w pictures, the 2nd version also has corrected tilt if you compare them side by side Bleh999 02:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Original version, they second version has too many areas that are too bright (I suck at photographer talk) --Childzy ¤ Talk 21:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Original. One of the most recognizable historical pictures. Regarding quality I am not sure if it possible to find better one at all. M.K. 23:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support probably for the hi-res version. This is a universally recognized and used picture, seeing as it is a clear illustration of the destructive climax of WWII. -- Reaper X 06:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Nagasakibomb.jpg MER-C 09:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]