Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Maersk Elba.JPG

File:Maersk Elba.JPG, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 May 2011 at 21:21:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Wolf (talk) 21:21, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I did notice that we have very few FPs of big ships (and two of those are wrecks...), so I uploaded this picture, taken today. I don't think it's perfect (there is a very slight loss of sharpness towards the stern of the ship), but after comparing it with other maritime FPs I believe it lives up to our standards. If I omitted something, please, do let me know. Additional information: this is the biggest vessel ever to have entered the Baltic Sea. Wolf (talk) 21:21, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf (talk) 21:21, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:30, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good -- aghith 09:17, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 17:33, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 15:04, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good picture. Very informative, especially for an extremely landlocked person such as myself. Could use a geocode. -- Sdgjake (talk) 15:50, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment At your service. Wolf (talk) 15:58, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 18:41, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support A bit tight crop but featurable IMO --Ximonic (talk) 14:02, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 07:57, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Am I the only one then who sees the slight CC tilt, the CA and the fuzziness (especially at the right side)? Also the crop is too tight. A static object like this should be better. W.S. 14:20, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I have to admit I can't see much CA. I agree about the rest though. --Avenue (talk) 15:39, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Mainly for the tight crop, but also the slight tilt and unsharpness. --Avenue (talk) 15:39, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've checked the image fot tilt. It's about 0,1 degrees, but clockwise, not counterclockwise as Wetenschatje suggests. And as for the tight crop - it is not tight, it is just too tight as for the Commons bias in this respect. There is for example a style of cropping called the aircraft spotters' crop (see here, website in Polish, but you will surely recognize the word spotterski). According to this school the crop of this picture would be... to loose. Wolf (talk) 17:26, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Indeed I meant clockwise, not CC. W.S. 19:02, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - That is tight! I guess it makes sense if all you care about is the plane, and not any context. --Avenue (talk) 14:01, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - As above it is of course not just the tilt (which, BTW I measured at .78°), but the combination of tilt, crop, blurriness and indeed a slight CA. W.S. 15:21, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's exactly my point: what additional information would be conceived by making a wider crop? Wolf (talk) 15:25, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Space. Crop should ideally be proportionate to the size of the main object (which is fairly large here). And even with a non moving vessel (or car or plane or train or anything movable), space ahead should ideally be larger than space behind. W.S. 15:30, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Murdockcrc (talk) 16:02, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 16:22, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:37, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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