Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Soyuz TMA-01M
Soyuz TMA-01M[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Apr 2011 at 20:18:05 (UTC)
- Reason
- Eye-catching and EV (shows the guts of Soyuz, together with the transport vehicle).
- Articles in which this image appears
- Soyuz TMA-01M
- FP category for this image
- Space/Getting there
- Creator
- NASA/Carla Cioffi
- Support as nominator --Brandmeister t 20:18, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- Support - The crop is a little tight, but overall good composition and colors. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:27, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose: It is striking but at the cost of EV. The fish-eye distortion is so large that it's difficult to tell what you're even looking at a rocket, much less what the rocket actually looks like. You can see the distortion in the background buildings, they're all leading to the left 20 degrees.--RDBury (talk) 14:51, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- This is not a fisheye lens; it's an ultrawide (there's no curving of straight lines). Also, such distortion is inevitable with large objects, like rockets. Cowtowner (talk) 20:16, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- Distortion is only inevitable if you're taking a picture from this close up. Jujutacular talk 14:23, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
- This is not a fisheye lens; it's an ultrawide (there's no curving of straight lines). Also, such distortion is inevitable with large objects, like rockets. Cowtowner (talk) 20:16, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry, oppose, kind of suffers from the same problems as the centipede above - a striking photo, but you can't really tell that you're looking at a rocket from this perspective. Are there other similar photos? Aaadddaaammm (talk) 18:46, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- Support Very visually striking, to the point where I want to read more of the article, and conveys the immensity of the rocket well (and I think it's very clear that you are looking at a rocket). Also gives good EV on how it is transported (note the railway tracks). Maybe a smidge underexposed. Cowtowner (talk) 20:16, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose Don't see the need for the exaggerated perspective and very wide lens. JJ Harrison (talk) 22:00, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose as per JJ. J Milburn (talk) 10:46, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose I can't grasp exactly how large this is due to the obscure perspective. Razum2010 (talk) 01:20, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose tight crop, distorted --kaʁstn 14:49, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 17:31, 13 April 2011 (UTC)