Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Aeroflot Tupolev Tu-104B at Arlanda, July 1972.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:Aeroflot Tupolev Tu-104B at Arlanda, July 1972.jpg, not featured
[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Sep 2011 at 13:16:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info created by Lars Söderström - uploaded by Russavia - nominated by Russavia -- russavia (talk) 13:16, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Support This photo never fails to amaze me everytime I look at it. For a photo which is now nearly 40 years old, the quality is absolutely AMAZING! It has often been said that it looks like a computer generated image, but low and behold, it is absolutely real, and is quite probably the most amazing photo of this vintage Soviet aircraft that I have seen -- russavia (talk) 13:16, 21 September 2011 (UTC)- Support JukoFF (talk) 13:20, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Oppose -- It is a nice and historically interesting photo . But I see nothing special justitying the FP status, either in the subject or in the image quality. The tight crop and cut-off tail is a strong minus in the framing. Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:02, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
- Something I don't understand with Commons, is if one looks at airliners.net the overwhelming majority of photos are tightly cropped, because the subject is the actual aircraft, not the tarmac it is on, nor the buildings around it, but the aircraft. I don't understand why Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Reptiles and Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals/Arthropods, etc are full of tightly-cropped photos, whilst aircraft are supposed to be so wide in nature, that the actual subject is lost. As to the right horizontal stabiliser (tailplane), the crop on that is so minimal that it is almost unnoticeable and does not detract from the amazing quality and historical significance of such a photo. russavia (talk) 18:43, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
- Just to show an example. If this photo was cropped as tight, it wouldn't be suitable, because one wants to see what is in the background, and it is cropped enough that both the subject isn't lost, nor is the background (this photo isn't featured, but is one I am going to get a larger size of to bring thru the process). This photo is also cropped about right, because the subject is the aircraft beginning its take-off run (another photo I will try to get larger for FP). This photo is also cropped right, because the subject is the contrails left by the aircraft, and also the expanse of the sky above the actual aircraft. But the subject of this photo, is more akin to a lizard sitting on a rock, or an insect on a flower or branch - the actual subject of this is the aircraft - the sleek lines, the jet engines, the glazed navigators nose -- in other words the actual aircraft, not what it is doing. And the quality, I must say, is absolutely flawless, hence why it is FP quality. russavia (talk) 19:00, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Comment I think the crop is perceived as "too tight" because the tailplane is cut off. Lupo 12:36, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
- Comment And the tip of the plane is within about 2% of the image edge. That's not the case in any of the reptiles I can see. Head shots are a totally different type of photo. --99of9 (talk) 14:24, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
- Support Excellent picture. Lazyhawk (talk) 22:27, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose per Alvesgaspar + the crop is too tight. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 23:54, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose Agree that is an interesting picture, but the crop really hurts. --ELEKHHT 05:13, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose. Cut off tail, and cropped too tight at right. --Avenue (talk) 05:48, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry. As you all know, I support tight cropping of airplane photos, but having part of the image cropped off like that is a total no-no. One can crop off a significant part of the wings or rotor (in helicopters) so as to emphasise the fuselage, and that's OK, but this is not. Łukasz Wolf Golowanow (talk) 11:19, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 18:55, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
