Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Qantas Boeing 747-400 VH-OJU over Starbeyevo Kustov.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Oct 2011 at 10:46:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created by Sergey Kustov (User:bushman787) - uploaded by Russavia| - nominated by Russavia -- russavia (talk) 10:46, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
- Support -- russavia (talk) 10:46, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
- Support. Lazyhawk (talk) 11:17, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
- Support. Zooro-Patriot (talk) 11:20, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
- Support →AzaToth 11:51, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Sergey will be viewing this request, and others I am doing for his photos, and will be available to address any reasonable concerns and the like. I will also encourage him to sign up on Commons. russavia (talk) 12:44, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose unneccessary colour modifications that detract from it's educational value. --99of9 (talk) 13:55, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Apart from the curiosity of being taken from a long distance, I see nothing featurable in this image. Extreme crop, underexposed and not sharp enough. It would be nice to have the Exif information. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:21, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
- My friend, most humbly on my knee I beg you not to call this crop extreme. According to the most up to date standards this crop is quite acceptable, a bit too tight perhaps, but far from extreme. Many aviation photographers would call this crop too loose/wide, although the Commons population seems to favor such compositions. I have no problem with that, I simply believe that some of us are being too harsh on the issue of empty space when in comes to airplanes. Łukasz Wolf Golowanow (talk) 19:06, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
- I agree, tighter crop is possible, so this one is not the most extreme. Nevertheless Oppose as aeroplane caged within a too tight framing, according to my (non-aviation, but simply aesthetic) standards, sorry. --ELEKHHT 11:05, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
- I disagree entirely. It is the fact that it is taken whilst flying overhead at 11,000 metres and the aircraft is in perfect view, along with one of the features one sees when an aircraft is flying at altitude; the contrails. One would not the contrails when flying at low altitude; at least not this visible. russavia (talk) 00:33, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
- My friend, most humbly on my knee I beg you not to call this crop extreme. According to the most up to date standards this crop is quite acceptable, a bit too tight perhaps, but far from extreme. Many aviation photographers would call this crop too loose/wide, although the Commons population seems to favor such compositions. I have no problem with that, I simply believe that some of us are being too harsh on the issue of empty space when in comes to airplanes. Łukasz Wolf Golowanow (talk) 19:06, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
- Support --Sven.petersen (talk) 12:09, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
- Support --PAULOGARCIA2005 (talk) 02:53, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose as Elekhh. พ.s. 06:13, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 15:55, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- Support -- -donald- (talk) 10:13, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
- Support Basik07 (talk) 21:34, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 06:39, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Vehicles