Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Boeing 747-400 contrails

Boeing 747-400 contrails
Voting period ends on 2 Jan 2016 at 02:20:39 (UTC)
 * Reason:Interesting image used to illustrate several articles; already featured on Commons. Please note the shorter side of this image is 1,333 pixels, but due to the specialized nature of this photo and its encyclopedic value to multiple articles I am hoping that the FPC voters will agree to make an exception to the 1,500 minimum pixels guideline.
 * Articles in which this image appears:Cruise (aeronautics), Aircraft spotting, Aviation photography, Barlow lens, Boeing 747, Contrail
 * FP category for this image:Featured pictures/Vehicles/Air
 * Creator:Sergey Kustov


 * Support as nominator – Pine✉ 02:20, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment – Pic, taken in 2010, has been on Contrail article for several years. Sca (talk) 15:37, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose – low EV due to unnatural sky color. c:Category:Contrails photographed from the ground contains 775 photographs, and I do not see how this image should be an exception to the 1,500 pixel standard. sst✈(discuss) 09:40, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Does not meet criteria. Only historic - impossible to recapture pictures should be accepted below min size. gaz hiley  10:20, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Nice composition, but far too small. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:01, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. Thinking about it, I have to support this. It is not easy to take a high-resolution image of something 36,000 feet in the air from the ground. This is relatively high quality for images of aircraft contrails. sst✈(discuss) 15:22, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'm in a quandary regarding minimum size. Given the nature of the shot and the tightness of the crop the detail is actually very high and difficult to improve upon. Comparable or greater than similar shots that meet minimum size. @gazhiley: There is also a possible exception for "technically difficult" images which this may qualify under.
 * As an exercise I wonder how many would support the same photo if there was a touch more lead room to bring it up to min size? (not a serious alt) - Wolftick (talk) 21:01, 21 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Nice composition, but I don't really see any reason that the minimum should be waived for this image, it's not a one of a kind event. Mattximus (talk) 23:33, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment – shutter speed metadata 1/400 seconds seemed too slow, so I did a calculation. Plane length 232ft, speed 560miles/hour, so the plane moves 0.9% of its body length in 1/400 seconds (which is 11 pixels in our image). There is no way the image can be this sharp if the plane moved 11 pixels during exposure. So the shutter speed metadata is wrong. A realistic exposure would be 1/4000 seconds or faster (which the Canon 400D barely makes). On the other hand, the image has EV, is technically good, is difficult to shoot and to replicate, and per Wolftick more sky doesn't help a lot (although I think it helps some). Question: Is the incorrect metadata a disqualifier? Bammesk (talk) 03:12, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Did you consider the possibility of the camera panning and following the subject? ;-) --Janke | Talk 07:48, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * No I didn't. Now it makes sense, the shutter speed is at 1/400 and my question is mute. For what it's worth, these are more images from the same author 1 2 3 4 Bammesk (talk) 02:16, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Neutral Good photo, but per others. --Tremonist (talk) 13:37, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support – per sst and Wolftick. (exceptions criteria says "realistically acquired", not created, it is somewhat subjective) Bammesk (talk) 00:46, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support WiiWillieWiki 05:14, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

--Armbrust The Homunculus 05:08, 2 January 2016 (UTC)