Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Dec 2017 at 22:32:07 (UTC)
Original – This may be the only photograph of the remnants of Halifax Explosion itself reportedly taken 15-20 seconds after the explosion. Indications are that it was taken at Bedford Basin, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada, from approximately a mile's distance looking southeast.
Reason
Photographed here is the aftermath of what is largely considered one of the largest (if not the largest) man made non-nuclear explosion in human history: the Halifax Explosion, which annihilated the ammunition ship SS Mont Blanc and leveled a sizable portion of Halifax, Nova Scotia. This is not quite up to FA standards, its a little short of the size requirements, however in light of the historical significance and the circumstances under which the photograph was taken I'm asking the community for a degree of leniency here.
Photographer: unknown. Photo is asserted to PD by virtue of time lapse and changes to the crown copyright law, which are detailed on the image page. Restored version as shown here is courtesy of User:WarBaCoN
Neutral - Very striking image, but quality-wise it seems to be from a mass media print source rather than a negative or photographic print. Do we have any information on its provenance? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:03, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Sorry to crash the party, but it looks like it's not correctly assembled - the hub looks off-center! Pleas confirm, thanks!--Janke | Talk14:03, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Janke; true, is a bit more down, i have to use some angle to shot, since stacked, and horizontal shooting isnt possible (i used softbox). Would need some other equipement for that. So nut is moved a bit down, for around 1 mm. But i hope that wont spoil the party. --PetarM (talk) 16:03, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
All the sprockets/wheels are centered, so I think the photo serves its purpose. This isn't an assembled set [1], in assembly the center-piece (lockring) threads into and centers on a hub. In this photo it just sits loosely on top, unfortunately a bit off-center. P.S. where is the party :-) Bammesk (talk) 02:34, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice colors and detail; makes it look very appetizing, and I say this as someone who is not generally a fungivore. I hope it's not toxic. Should have read the article first. Damn! Something so beautiful, yet so deadly ... Daniel Case (talk) 06:03, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Moderate support I don't know, I sort of like this one—it has a nice sense of movement and action. How else would you expect to catch a goalie in the act of making a dramatic save? Daniel Case (talk) 06:00, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Composition: crop too tight. Goalie not looking at ball; just not an appealing image. Motion blur, especially the ball and player's legs: exposure time inappropriate for action shot; Image tilt; Picture is obviously a set-up, not taken in an actual game - see settings (not taken with a zoom) - so the photographer was standing on the pitch! - it really has nothing going for it at all. Charlesjsharp (talk) 23:17, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see the crop, goalie's posture, and it being a set-up photo as subjective qualities. About blur: exposure time and depth of field could be faster/deeper, obviously improving either one would hurt the noise, so I see it as a compromise. A sidenote about the set-up, I see a fill flash from an elevated angle. What stand out to me most is the lens barrel distortion, but overall I like the photo (unusual perspective, not easy shot, imperfections make it look real). I understand if anyone disagrees. Cheers. Bammesk (talk) 00:13, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Crop is too tight, with a larger crop you could see the entire goal, which would add EV. Also motion blur is fairly distracting. Mattximus (talk) 21:46, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]