Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Belgian F-16 Radom 2009.JPG
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:Belgian F-16 Radom 2009.JPG, not featured[edit]
Voting period ends on 13 Sep 2009 at 21:06:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info created by Łukasz Golowanow and Maciek Hypś - uploaded by Łukasz Golowanow - nominated by Łukasz Golowanow -- Airwolf (talk) 21:06, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Support -- Airwolf (talk) 21:06, 4 September 2009 (UTC)- SupportAs sharp as a jet plane in flight can be I think. Good pic. Wpedzich (talk) 21:09, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not sure about that. This picture is definitely sharper. It also has less noise and better composition, which is why I
Oppose the candidate. -- JovanCormac 07:49, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
- Do take note, please, that the photo you are referring to was taken from another airplane, which means there was little or no difference in velocity (i.e. no real movement in relation to the photographer). Airwolf (talk) 09:59, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
- So you took this picture from the ground? Given that, the quality is actually pretty impressive, but that doesn't change how it compares to the F-22 picture I mentioned. Fact is that most of the many in-flight pictures in the F-22_Raptor category have better sharpness than this one, and because of that I simply cannot support. I'm sorry for that and hope you are not discouraged, but when reviewing a nomination I tend to look at what we have already first, and this candidate just isn't among the best of them. -- JovanCormac 13:15, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
- I understand. Maybe you feel that there's another picture taken on that day (and yes, they were taken from the ground) which you feel is more suitable than this one? Airwolf (talk) 13:23, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
- What a gallery! I like both File:F-16 Solo Display Team Radom 2009.JPG and File:F-16 Solo Display Team Radom 2009 b.JPG better in terms of colors and technical quality, but the real treasure is File:Red Arrows Radom 2009 b.JPG, which has a truly fantastic composition and no quality problems at all. It would surprise the hell out of me if that one did not get featured, should you nominate it. -- JovanCormac 13:34, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
- I took the liberty of running a careful denoise on File:Red Arrows Radom 2009 b.JPG, which makes this great photo look a little better yet. I strongly suggest you nominate it. You have my support already. -- JovanCormac 13:42, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Comment That one's currently my desktop background. I was planning on nominating it myself at some stage; guess great minds think alike? :D Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 03:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- I took the liberty of running a careful denoise on File:Red Arrows Radom 2009 b.JPG, which makes this great photo look a little better yet. I strongly suggest you nominate it. You have my support already. -- JovanCormac 13:42, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
- What a gallery! I like both File:F-16 Solo Display Team Radom 2009.JPG and File:F-16 Solo Display Team Radom 2009 b.JPG better in terms of colors and technical quality, but the real treasure is File:Red Arrows Radom 2009 b.JPG, which has a truly fantastic composition and no quality problems at all. It would surprise the hell out of me if that one did not get featured, should you nominate it. -- JovanCormac 13:34, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
- I understand. Maybe you feel that there's another picture taken on that day (and yes, they were taken from the ground) which you feel is more suitable than this one? Airwolf (talk) 13:23, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
- So you took this picture from the ground? Given that, the quality is actually pretty impressive, but that doesn't change how it compares to the F-22 picture I mentioned. Fact is that most of the many in-flight pictures in the F-22_Raptor category have better sharpness than this one, and because of that I simply cannot support. I'm sorry for that and hope you are not discouraged, but when reviewing a nomination I tend to look at what we have already first, and this candidate just isn't among the best of them. -- JovanCormac 13:15, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
- Do take note, please, that the photo you are referring to was taken from another airplane, which means there was little or no difference in velocity (i.e. no real movement in relation to the photographer). Airwolf (talk) 09:59, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not sure about that. This picture is definitely sharper. It also has less noise and better composition, which is why I
- Support The standards are definitely not the same. Between a Wikimedian's work, and an US employee's work, I support the first one. →Diti the penguin — 09:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
- Support Perfect composition, and in my opinion, the slightly sub-optimal sharpness reminds you that what you are looking at is a machine built for speed, moving very fast. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 03:51, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose - blurry. I know it is a fast moving object but still if you want the FP status it should be crystal clear.--Avala (talk) 09:19, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- Support per Sarcastic ShockwaveLover. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:40, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Not sharp, noisy. Lycaon (talk) 09:52, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Blurry. --NEUROtiker ⇌ 09:02, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
- Support PMG (talk) 14:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
