Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:A surfer in the air.jpg

File:A surfer in the air.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Nov 2009 at 20:49:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:A surfer in the air.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:A surfer in the air.jpg

•  Info everything by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 20:49, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 20:49, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Impressive, and much better post-processing than the other similar nomination. I would still like to see full resolution, if this is a downsample. --S23678 (talk) 02:35, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support quite a capture. Durova (talk) 06:58, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Neutral great capture, but I don't like the composition. --Leafnode✉ 15:26, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support excepionally! --Michael Gäbler (talk) 23:20, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose strange photo, not in COM:PS. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:21, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
  • It is being used in an article on en.wikipedia - so is in scope.--Nilfanion (talk) 19:10, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
    • There are thousands of the images on Commons that are not used in any project, which most of the time does not mean they are out of the scope. What is out of scope here is the oppose vote of kuiper, who opposed not the image, but me personally. --Mbz1 (talk) 00:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support I find the concept that this image is "out of scope" simply bizarre I'm afraid. This is action photography of a sport. I look forward to seeing the deletion request removing all such images. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 18:35, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose IMO the composition is awkward - the surfer is too close to the right edge of the image.--Nilfanion (talk) 19:10, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Well captured, but in a FP surf's photo I prefere action --Cesco77 (talk) 11:07, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

If it is not an action shot, I do not know what is.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• • • This is an action shot of surfing. The surfer is on the board and is making a manouvre. Your image isn't bad, but isn't good to illustrate this sport well. --Cesco77 (talk) 12:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
      • Thank you for clarifying your position! I cannot agree with you. For wxample, please take a look at that image File:Surfer in santa cruz 14.jpg. It is of a a surfer exiting a closeout. So the nominated shot is an action shot, and it is what I observe quite often. Please take a look at one more image File:A surfer in the air 2.jpg--Mbz1 (talk) 13:06, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
        • I understand your position, but wipeout isn't the best moment in this sport to take a picture, for me. The two surf pictures you have upload and featured, are simply perfect (this and this), but this one don't have the same quality IMO --Cesco77 (talk) 08:19, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support clear sport photo in action -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment. Shows the wave better than the surfer. To me it looks like the individual in the picture is falling of the board, so I think that the wrong moment is captured for a FA. If not, perhaps the surfing manoeuvre could be illustrated better in a video. Snowmanradio (talk) 19:06, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Of course he's falling of the board. They all usually do in the end :) It is a normal , and usual part of surfing. We already have few FP images of surfers on the board. It would have been nice to have one out, and btw IMO to show a surfer without the wave is not nearly as interesting. The wave by itself has EV. A surfer provdides a great scale for the wave, which makes EV of the image only higher.BTW what "FA" stands for in your comment above?--Mbz1 (talk) 20:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

If that is the case, I think that the image description should say that he is falling off the board. Snowmanradio (talk) 00:49, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

•  Info The image's description is corrected, the situation is explained, now you could take out your oppose vote :)--Mbz1 (talk) 02:08, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

• I see that the image description has been amended to explain the picture better. I have changed my additions above to a comment, and I might vote again later when I have considered the image again. Snowmanradio (talk) 16:50, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

In any case I'd like to thank you for helping me to improve the image's decription :) --Mbz1 (talk) 17:09, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

•  Support I don't understand the out of scope comment (above). I found no other pictures on Commons with the surfer in the air that shows the underside of the board clearly. It appears to have high illustrative merit, is probably difficult to repeat, and meets the other criteria. Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose. Mainly for the composition, but also that most of it is a bit blurry. --Silversmith Hewwo 07:42, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose. As above, mainly composition problems. --Karel (talk) 19:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:31, 29 November 2009 (UTC)