Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:South African Airways Airbus A340-313 ZS-SXE MUC 2015 02.jpg

File:South African Airways Airbus A340-313 ZS-SXE MUC 2015 02.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Aug 2015 at 15:05:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles
Info c/u/n by me. I know the quality is not comparable to an equivalent photo in daylight, but I really like the light here. The freezing cold might have messed with my panning abilities. — Julian H.^✈ 15:05, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Julian H.^✈ 15:05, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressiv, interesting colors – beautiful. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 16:11, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Uau! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:18, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Lothar. --Johann Jaritz (talk) Johann Jaritz 16:23, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support A very nice photo, both with EV and artistic value. Great winter light and the sharpness is not too bad at all. --DXR (talk) 16:29, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support wow --Laitche (talk) 16:38, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 17:46, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support biouuuutifoul lighting - Benh (talk) 18:17, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing special, usual subject (a bit boring to me), the light is not mitigating enough.--Jebulon (talk) 20:48, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support The light makes it special. Daniel Case (talk) 21:00, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Jeb --LivioAndronico ^(talk) 21:28, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Great moment, great light, great sharpness (considering the panning and shutter speed). Diliff (talk) 21:45, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thennicke (talk) 08:03, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer 08:55, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't get your EXIF but its still OK. --Mile (talk) 09:18, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Is it possible that I can clarify something about the EXIF info? — Julian H.^✈ 10:04, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As last photo of plane, which was in motion, you put low ISO (100). Any particular reason, or you tried panning ? --Mile (talk) 13:10, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Mile: The ISO value may actually be misleading here. As the camera is pretty much ISO invariant, it hardly matters if I use ISO 100 or 400, so setting it to 100 really doesn't have any disatvantage. The result you see is probably closer to ISO 300-400, at least in some areas. This wouldn't work with most Canon cameras for example, but with Sony sensors, this decision can mostly be made in editing. That being said, it might have been better to use a slightly shorter shutter speed and to close the aperature a bit more for better sharpness in exchange for more noise. Then again, that would make the background more distracting. But if the ISO value confuses you, which I fully understand, take it with a grain of salt because it doesn't actually represent the gain that you see in the photo. — Julian H.^✈ 13:41, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose For the opposers--Σπάρτακος (talk) 16:06, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Daniel Case. —Bruce1ee^talk 04:57, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:20, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Could you please specify whether this is a take-off or a landing? Based on the angle of attack I'd guess it's a landing, but I don't know much about airliners (didn't even notice the A340 had this strange 3-legged main landing gear until now ;-)) --El Grafo (talk) 09:24, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I've added the fact that it's a landing to the description page. — Julian H.^✈ 10:18, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral It's definitely a good one, but still I'm not wow-ed. However, given the number of supporters so far I think that might be because of me rather than the picture. --El Grafo (talk) 09:24, 17 August 2015 (UTC) a) I find airliners incredibly boring compared to almost anything else that flies. b) I've spend too much time on pages like airliners.net, where I've seen too many extremely spectacular shots of otherwise boring airplanes ;-)[reply]
Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:53, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 16:29, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Great lighting, detail ok but low resolution is low, but as others I find the subject really boooring Poc o² 18:59, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 3 oppose, 2 neutral → featured. /--Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:26, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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