Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:MercedesBenz CLK AMG safetyCar amk.jpg

Image:MercedesBenz CLK AMG safetyCar amk.jpg, not featured

•  Info created, uploaded, nominated by AngMoKio --AngMoKio 19:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
•  Comment I think this picture shows very well the movement and the speed of the car. The motion blur is not added by software.--AngMoKio 19:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --AngMoKio 19:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Erinnerst du dich noch was ich dir versprochen habe ;) --Richard Bartz 20:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Über Support von dir freue ich mich am meisten :)--AngMoKio 05:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

•  Support--Mbz1 22:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
•  Oppose Low sharpness by moving. Sorry --Beyond silence 01:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• I believe this was the desired effect. Benh 20:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

•  Oppose Agree with Beyond silence Freedom to share 16:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

May it is desire at the background, but less at the car. --Beyond silence 21:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

•  Oppose - A fairly bland composition, aside from the motion effect--Ragesoss 02:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
•  Comment- I'm kind of wondering how you achieved that motion effect unless you were also in a moving vehicle when you took the shot Madmax32 13:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  • It is a technique called panning. This is sth that i am practicing for some time now. When the car passes you, you have to move the camera in the speed of the car and take the picture. It takes a lot of practise and also luck to get a good shot.--AngMoKio 17:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose (weak) I like the motion blur, but the orange "plot" is really annoying, and I'd have prefered more space in front of the car and not behind. Benh 21:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose but please try again. The cone is a problem, as is the blur on the back half of the car. I wonder if that is not motion blur, but simply too small a DOF? Regards, Ben Aveling 07:51, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

It is motion blur, it was intended to be like that. I actually think the cone fits where it is. Well try again? Such a picture is not so easy to try again...to see a Formula 1 safety car like this is a rare opportunity. And if you have the opportunity it is not a picture you can make several times until you have a nice one. Anyway thanks for your comment. --AngMoKio 10:52, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

How do you get motion blur on the back of the car but not on the front of the car? What camera settings did you use? And yes, I certainly do know what you mean about not being able to try some photos over again.  :-) Cheers, Ben Aveling 12:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

f/8, 1/80s. The fact that the motion blur is only on the front has to do with the fact that you draw a half circle when you move the camera with the car - so the movement of the camera only fits to a certain part of the car. It is a bit difficult to explain. --AngMoKio 14:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I see. The amount of rotation required depends on the ratio between the speed of the car, its distance from you, and the exposure time. The speed and exposure time are the same for all the bits of the car but the distance from the camera differs by a significant amount, relative to your distance from the car, so the different parts would require a different rotation not to be blurred. That makes sense. I'd support this picture for QI. Given the circumstances, you probably did as well as could be done. But for reasons as per the above, it still falls short of FP for me. Better luck next time. Ben Aveling 01:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

•  Oppose Too distracting of a background. Good picture though. -- IvanTortuga 07:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
•  Support - I really like it -- Fabien1309 22:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

result: 4 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Lycaon 16:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)