Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Lockheed 1049A Super Constellation (EC-121T) 1049A-55-86 by D Ramey Logan.jpg

File:Lockheed 1049A Super Constellation (EC-121T) 1049A-55-86 by D Ramey Logan.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Mar 2017 at 03:29:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

I am not sure about the crop, commons has few photos of this plane as only a few are left. LMK if you think a alt with a different crop would work better before rejecting the photo. Thanks

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Air transport
Info created & stuff by -- Don (talk) 03:29, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Don (talk) 03:29, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I think the crop is OK, and I like the wide-angle approach to photographing this plane. Good sky, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:28, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Ikan and a good quality picture taken with a smarphone, congratulations!! Ezarateesteban 13:29, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per others. Daniel Case (talk) 15:39, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice angle. --cart-Talk 19:15, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:47, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm missing wow, something that would elevate this to be among our finest. It's a good quality shot and the sky helps, but nothing notable in my opinion. The biggest downfall is the cluttered and similarly-colored background behind the front of the plane which harms the subject separation. – Lucas ^T 10:20, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment User:Lucasbosch The "Clutter" is what we call a "Hanger". You see them on most airports. It is used to store the other parts for the airplane. If you review the [Category:Lockheed Super Constellation] you will see that ALL of the photos of this plane are close to a decade old, and quite poor in quality. You have nice studio photos, this is not a photo that can be taken in a studio. Moving the sun & a airplane that has not moved in 6 years to get a shot without the "Hanger" was I am afraid not a option without an extra 50k for the crew to move it and a FAA permit... --Don (talk) 14:31, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don, I am not comparing this in my mind with studio photos, I realise the differences. The hanger in the background just is visually interfering with the plane, so the brain needs to work out what is plane and what isn't. I imagine you wanted to show this side of the plane together with some context (=hanger), but it just didn't work out well enough for a FP in my view. – Lucas ^T 16:35, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lucas, the FP section is not about WOW, it is about quality when subjected to a comparison of similar photos, on Commons and I think sometimes this gets away from people. Over the last 2 offerings your comments have been similar in tone so I would like to offer this: no airplane of this nature would ever not have a hanger of service personal attached to it, this photo tells a complete story. The fact that only a handful of Super Constellations are left makes this in terms of it's technical features, when compared to the other photos of a on Commons worthy of consideration for FP, "what is the photos value to the project(?) considering weight, composition and technical aspects as well as difficulty of acquisition, all the others are on display in a museum or rotting in rust piles. This with the fact that I took it with my phone, as noted above should also be considered (imho) as, over the 7 years I have contributed the "pre req" for FP equipment showing that anyone could "in theory" take a photo with a regular phone that could become a FP, that was one of the original aspects of this section. My 2 cents for what it is worth.. Cheers and thank you for your wonderful contributions! --Don (talk) 17:34, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don, there is QI for purely technically good photos, there is VI for rare and unique photos and there is FP for the best of the best, where good photography is at display, be it taken with a smartphone or vintage camera. The wow factor is a small part, and it can be achieved by many factors. I appreciate that your photo is realistic in that it shows the hanger with the plane, but as I explained above the visual separation is not enough. Separation is an aspect of good photography in my and many other's opinion and I find your photo just not visually appealing because of it. In theory it would be possible to have the hanger and the plane both in the frame and have them not being mushed into eachother. The fact that it was taken with a smartphone is something I don't consider at all as FP is about the photograph itself. – Lucas ^T 18:32, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:29, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 22:24, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support lNeverCry 04:23, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /lNeverCry 22:45, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Vehicles/Air transport