Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:D.F. Maceda - Fojón.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Image:D.F. Maceda - Fojón.jpg, not featured[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Aug 2016 at 16:26:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Sports#Motorsports
Info created by Harpagornis - uploaded by Harpagornis - nominated by Harpagornis -- Harpagornis (talk) 16:26, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Support -- Harpagornis (talk) 16:26, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Comment Welcome back here! Now before we start voting on this pic, could you please give some more details in the description for those who are not familiar with racing, like who or what is "Fojón and Maceda", the model of the car, what country the race is in and so on. The model of the car should also be in the catagories along with other things that might help editors locate this picture for articles. w.carter-Talk 17:39, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Oppose - I totally understand the idea of a blur for speed, but that doesn't mean I love looking at it, and other photos of racecars in action that we've seen haven't had quite that blurry a background, if I remember correctly. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:20, 7 August 2016 (UTC)- Oppose 1/60 @ f/11 is too slow for action like this. INeverCry 20:01, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
- Comment Not sure I get your argument, it's a panning, it's quite classical. In the past we have featured this File:Hawker Sea Fury FB 10 F-AZXJ OTT 2013 10.jpg --PierreSelim (talk) 06:00, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
- The plane-photo is primarily a great pic of a well lit, good angle, beautiful plane against a blurred background (panning speed instead of bokeh). Here the light is too harsh and flat, too much uninteresting asphalt (its texture does not alter with speed panning and it "slows down" the pic) and unfortunately the only clearly distinguishable spectators have ended up on the hood of the car. Panning is very difficult, but as stated before, here we ask the impossible of photographers. w.carter-Talk 08:07, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
- Support Not bad! --Karelj (talk) 21:07, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose While it has some speed and is rather sharp, the composition is not one of the best with too much uninteresting road in a straight-from-the-side-shot. Not an FP for me. w.carter-Talk 21:43, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
- Comment I not understant, the background should be more blurry for a shot panning? --Harpagornis (talk) 22:29, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
- I was speaking figuratively, not about the blurriness, that the pic gave a sense of motion. w.carter-Talk 08:07, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
- Honestly I can not understand our arguments, and even more if you compare me with a photo to 1/125 sec --Harpagornis (talk) 11:03, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
- Yo estaba hablando en sentido figurado por la emoción, no de la técnica borrosa, sólo que la foto dar una sensación de movimiento. La discusión no es sobre la técnica, sino de las cualidades artísticas de la foto. (sorry for my bad Spanish) w.carter-Talk 12:35, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
- Honestly I can not understand our arguments, and even more if you compare me with a photo to 1/125 sec --Harpagornis (talk) 11:03, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
- I was speaking figuratively, not about the blurriness, that the pic gave a sense of motion. w.carter-Talk 08:07, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Per W. carter. Blurred though it may be, the background is large enough and filled with enough recognizable objects to be competing with the car for the viewer's attention. Daniel Case (talk) 20:49, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Yann (talk) 12:12, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Neutral No good composition for me. Perhaps a tighter crop would make it better. -- Spurzem (talk) 20:38, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /INeverCry 03:01, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
