USS Stark edit

 
USS Stark
 
Edit by Pharaoh Hound

This is an absolutlely amazing photo shot by a United States Navy person on the 17th of May 1987, after an Iraqi fighter jet mistook the Oliver Hazard Perry-class frigate USS Stark for an enemy ship and fired two anti-ship missiles into the vessel. I allways found this picture very moving and powerful in a dramatic way, but until recently the photo we had of it was only a few hundred pics big, well short of the mandated 100px by 1000px needed to be FP eligable. Today I checked up on the Stark article to see if anything had changed, and was delighted to see that a much larger version of this image had been uploaded; sadly though, this new image looks hideous when enlarged to full size, but I think it can pass if someone cleans it up. The image is a US Navy photo (photographer is/was unnamed), and currently appears in the articles Oliver Hazard Perry class frigate, USS Stark (FFG-31), 1987, and Exocet.

Comments

  • Sorry, the quality is just too bad to be cleaned up enough. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 13:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can any cleanup be attempted? Even if it doesn't meet FPC standards in the end I would still be happy to have the photo improved. It can not get much worse than it already is. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • A cleanup would probably show very little improvement, simply because the photo has basically no detail to work with. However, I'm willing to fool around with it on photoshop and see if I can improve it. If the improvement is significant I'll upload it. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 12:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • There. I've cropped it, removed some noise (the most I could remove without total loss of detail), played slightly with the contrast and colours, and eliminated the fading at the edges. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 14:00, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't know why the thumbnail quality is so bad -- the large version on Commons doesn't look so horrible. howcheng {chat} 23:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder: