Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:C17-Vortex.JPG

File:C17-Vortex.JPG, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2011 at 22:15:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:C17-Vortex.JPG Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:C17-Vortex.JPG

•  Info created by the USAF - uploaded by GrahameS - nominated by -- The High Fin Sperm Whale 22:15, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
•  Support I know the quality isn't the greatest, but it is a special and spectacular event. -- The High Fin Sperm Whale 22:15, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
•  Support -- Interesting. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 23:26, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
•  Support amazing image.. but I don't know if it has high EV. Ggia (talk) 23:45, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Actually, it does. It is an excellent example of a vortex and Wingtip vortices. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 02:36, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
•  Support -- It has wow factor. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:45, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
•  Support --Schnobby (talk) 09:33, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
•  Support Amazing!--Citron (talk) 09:46, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose So bad quaility; unsharp, noise,...D2x at f/4 for panorama, come on. --Mile (talk) 10:12, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
  • D2x at f/4 for panorama ??? Didn't you get the wrong FP candidate ? This is more like an action shot where timing looks to matter. - Benh (talk) 12:14, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Mile. Atrocious quality, tilted horizon. Does anyone really looks at the image in full size? W.S. 10:44, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Do you really read the comments ? Don't they mention some sort of mitigating reasons ? - Benh (talk) 12:14, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Mitigation only goes so far. It is meant for small imperfections, not for major flaws. W.S. 17:54, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
      • These aren't major flaw (at least to some people here). Noise is still acceptable IMO and who care about the horizon when the main subjects are well framed ? Anyways, you'll probably show us all how to take this kind of shots perfectly. - Benh (talk) 18:13, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
  • This had to've been taken from another aircraft and likely one or both of them were tilted, probably to make a turn. There's clearly an obtuse angle formed by the vortex to the plane in the distance and the photographer's perspective, so it probably is the case here that either the plane or the horizon would end up tilted. The person who created this image seemed to have preferred the horizon be tilted than the plane. IdLoveOne (talk) 13:36, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Tilted horizon not always means a flaw.. look in example the second image with tilted horizon by famous photographer Joseph Koudelka. Here the image is well balanced even the horizon is tilted. Ggia (talk) 12:36, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

•  Support - Benh (talk) 12:14, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose poor quality, bad composition, tilted, dust spot, ... --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 13:24, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
•  Support - As per THFSW -- Thomas888b (talk) 19:42, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
•  Neutral Very intressting but poor quality.--Claus (talk) 20:30, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
•  Support --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 06:57, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose quality --Wladyslaw (talk) 07:30, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
•  Neutral Per Claus. Poor quality, but very interesting.--Jebulon (talk) 10:01, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
•  Support Very interestning. --Karelj (talk) 12:03, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
•  Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 18:45, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose per kaʁstn, sorry. --Cephas (talk) 22:31, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
•  Support I agree that the horizon is tilted, the quality is not great, the main subject is soft, but I am one of those that think that under difficult circumstances technical rules must be flexible. This is not a photographer taking a landscape with a tripod with all the time in the world: these are fast-moving objects, either you take this shot as it is or you lose it. --Murdockcrc (talk) 20:05, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose per kaʁstn, sorry. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:38, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose horizon. 99of9 (talk) 03:14, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
• Sorry , but  Oppose -- Bojan  Talk  10:12, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose per others -- Marmoulak (talk) 05:00, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
•  Support --Petritap (talk) 08:24, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
•  Comment I see none of the opposers bothered to read by comment a few lines up. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 04:48, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 9 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:58, 26 February 2011 (UTC)