Talk:Cessna 150

The flying 150B image: opinions on alternatives?

• 
  As originally cropped and brightened
• 
  Cropped only
• 
  Cropped and slightly brightened

@FOX 52 and Ahunt:I noticed that the image of the flying 150B (N1280Y) had actually been modified from the originally uploaded photo, being cropped and also brightened by quite a lot. Since I don't believe that photos uploaded to Commons should be overwritten by modified versions, I reverted the change and reuploaded the altered version as a new file, changing the article to use that. But I also feel that this image has been overbrightened (the already white fin looks especially washed out), and that's where I'm seeking feedback now. I've included three alternatives: the originally cropped and brightened image, an image with the same crop but not brightened at all, and an image with the same crop but very mild brightening, just enough to lighten the darkest shadows under the wings. My personal favorite is the third one, but how do others feel? --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 07:07, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

I prefer the straight crop - it is more natural and the highlights aren't blown out - you can actually see detail on the tail. Nigel Ish (talk) 10:39, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Fixing these sorts of images is always a judgement call and a trade-off in colour and detail. Personally I think the "crop only" is underexposed, while the "cropped and slightly brightened" is the best compromise, but others may disagree. - Ahunt (talk) 11:44, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

I would agree with Douglas the 3rd one seems to be about right (not too bright, not too dark) IMHO - FOX 52 ^talk! 13:09, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

I understand Nigel Ish's points about the straight crop being more natural—that is, after all, what the camera initially generated—and the tail detail being most visible there. Initially I had thought only to replace the originally brightened image with the straight crop. But then couldn't help but notice how dark and difficult to discern the shadows looked in that; as Ahunt said, it does look underexposed. So as a compromise, to produce the mild brightening, I modestly adjusted the intensity curve (a bit like a small gamma correction), trying to make the shadows a little more visible while also preserving as much detail on the tail as possible.

It seems the balance of opinions are to use the mildly brightened image. It's been a bit over a day since any other comments were raised; I suppose it's now OK to make the change? --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 15:44, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes - FOX 52 ^talk! 06:35, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

OK, done. --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 07:33, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Conflict statement

The statement "Production of the 152 ended in 1985 when manufacturing of all Cessna piston singles was suspended" is in conflict with the Cessna 172 page, which states the 172, also a piston single engine, continues in production, "Produced 1996–present". HistorySherlock (talk) 14:15, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Nope both statements are correct. Cessna suspended all piston engine production in 1985 and then restarted it in 1996 after the regulatory environment was amended. - Ahunt (talk) 14:32, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Lotto.

Fun fact: dont eat the plane. M. Lotito should have a link here, one line saying that its the only plane to be eaten by a person. 49.183.64.30 (talk) 23:24, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

The stunt is notable to the person who performed it, Michel Lotito, but it is not notable to the aircraft type. See also WP:TRIVIA. - Ahunt (talk) 00:23, 5 September 2023 (UTC)