Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Air to air image of a Spitfire, taken over RAF Coningsby. MOD 45147974.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:Air to air image of a Spitfire, taken over RAF Coningsby. MOD 45147974.jpg, featured[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2015 at 05:38:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info created by Scott Lewis - uploaded by Fæ - nominated by Christian Ferrer -- ChristianFerrer 05:38, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Support -- ChristianFerrer 05:38, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Regretful oppose Loads of wow but the unsharpness is even visible in the preview (left wing). Not easy to get that right in an air-to-air shot but too big a shortcoming for me to support. Too bad. A bit tight too, but that wouldn’t bother me. But maybe I have just seen too many crisp sharp in-fly images yet :-) --Kreuzschnabel 21:25, 17 January 2015 (UTC)--Kreuzschnabel 06:46, 17 January 2015 (UTC)- Support i am not sure what exactly, but for me this image made a wow(!) effect... maybe is this from a point of view to plane is for me unobvious and/ or fantastic... --Bojars (talk) 07:27, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
- Support No doubt that this is one of the best pictures on commons. If there were any quality issues (I think the sharpness is overall sufficient) they were more than compensated by the composition IMO. --Code (talk) 07:30, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose Agree with Kreuz. --Mile (talk) 09:50, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
- Support I think that the circumstances and excellent subject/framing allow the lack of sharpness, particularly on one wing, to be forgiven. However, there's something odd about the picture. The Nikon D2X is a 12MP camera and this is a 17.3MP image. Plus it is in 4:3 format rather than 3:2 native format, so would have been cropped (never mind any cropping necessary to achieve the good framing here). This suggests the image has been considerably upscaled. I suggest reviewers downsample this to around 6MP for judging. Alternatively, perhaps Fæ knows from where the original non-upscaled version might be obtained? And does this upscaling issue affect other images retrieved from that source? -- Colin (talk) 10:36, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
- Support Dizzy picture. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 15:17, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
- Support big wow, can be a POTY candidate. Tomer T (talk) 19:54, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose Too-tight crop on wings and background is very distracting. Daniel Case (talk) 21:25, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
- Support, some unsharpness ignored as "photographer wasn't able to open the window". –Be..anyone (talk) 22:17, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Comment Poor excuse – air-to-air shots are usually taken through an open door or another opening. See here, for instance (including some perfectly sharp air-to-air shots). --Kreuzschnabel 06:28, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
- Support wowoowow. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 16:16, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
- Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:45, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
- Support spectacular image. That made a wow(!) effect.-- Pierre André (talk) 21:55, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose per others --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:28, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose The crop is too tight. ■ MMXX talk 18:12, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
- weak Support, mainly due to high wow (by Commons' standards – we really need more air-to-air shots). Reminds me of one of my all-time favorites from our collection. --El Grafo (talk) 20:23, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
- Support --Kikos (talk) 09:05, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
- Support Technical quality and light could be better, but given the circumstances under which the picture is taken I give my support. There is plenty of wwo. --Pugilist (talk) 10:51, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
- Support --Anpecer93 (talk) 00:40, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
- Support --Ralf Roleček 19:46, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 15 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 07:18, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Vehicles
