Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Emirates Airbus A380-861 A6-EER MUC 2015 01.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:Emirates Airbus A380-861 A6-EER MUC 2015 01.jpg, featured[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Aug 2015 at 09:01:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles
- Info c/u/n by — Julian H.✈ 09:01, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
- Support — Julian H.✈ 09:01, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
- Support sehr schön, da paßt alles. --Ralf Roleček 09:33, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Support--LivioAndronico (talk) 09:41, 1 August 2015 (UTC)- Support All perfect. --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 12:01, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
- Support Good spotting! --PierreSelim (talk) 12:02, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
- Support ✈✈✈ 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 12:04, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
- Support --Code (talk) 12:36, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
- Support --XRay talk 13:42, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
- Support per Arion. --Laitche (talk) 14:02, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
- Support A little unsharp on the tower, but that's such a small part of the overall image. (See, we can get these without Russavia!) Daniel Case (talk) 17:45, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you. As an explanation for the unsharpness: It's not possible to get a sharp tower, for two reasons. First, the aircraft is moving, so what you see in the background is motion blur. It could be reduced slightly with ISO/aperture, but it won't disappear completely. Second, the tower is 2.6 km away while the aircraft is only 600 m away. That is simply too much air in-between for good sharpness. If you have ever taken a photo over several kilometeres with a long focal length lens, you know that the heat differences, especially directly above the ground, will completely mess up the sharpness. So the buildings can only work as the backdrop for context, not as the subject itself. Which is why I didn't even try to eliminate motion blur. — Julian H.✈ 07:42, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
- Support D kuba (talk) 18:55, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose For Daniel --Σπάρτακος (talk) 22:20, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose. Too unsharp top part of the plane and all photo is too soft for me. --George Chernilevsky talk 05:53, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
- Just keep in mind please that it is a 9MP photo of a moving subject. There are not many of those here on Commons. — Julian H.✈ 07:42, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose I reviewed my vote.... George is right --LivioAndronico (talk) 06:26, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
- Neutral It would be perfect with the bottom of the airport buildings and the grounds --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 07:02, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks. Yes, admittedly, the fence was in the way there. Should have brought a ladder. — Julian H.✈ 07:44, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
- Support For unsharpness, I guess some people are looking at a different photo to me. The tower shows the normal slight softening effects of atmosphere, which is one of the components the eye/brain uses to determine distance. -- Colin (talk) 09:49, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
- Support absolutely per Colin --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:21, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
- Support Absolutely per Colin. Not sure if I looked at the good "top part" of the plane, but it's sharp to me. Blurry parts of the background are also caused by heat. - Benh (talk) 10:38, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
- Support Blur well explained by Julian above. And the subject is the plane, not the airport. Yann (talk) 11:06, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
- Support -- Christian Ferrer 14:06, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
- Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 19:33, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
- Support Very good. Who says that it is not sharp? -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 20:47, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
- Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:14, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
- Support -- -donald- (talk) 06:50, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
- Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:32, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Vehicles