Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Cessna 182P.jpg

Cessna 182P
Another high quality shot of a plane - this time with a sky background. Hopefully this background appeals to the people how didn't like the bg of the 150 I nominated below...

Appears in Cessna 182


 * Support Self Nom. --Fir0002 07:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Nice shot! Do you have a larger version? It would be better. Muhammad Mahdi Karim (talk) 11:22, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I do have a larger version but I'm not willing to release it at higher res under the GFDL. If wiki had a non-com license I would. This res is more than sufficient for guidelines --Fir0002 04:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Very nice shot indeed, and a lot better than the other one with the distracting background. By the way, as much as you may feel there is no need for a caption, I strongly suggest that you write something as I am certain most people would like to know a little more about the plane. -- Chris.B  |  talk  15:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Well than surely the sensible thing would be for people to head over to the article rather than the caption. I mean what value is there in me rehashing the article into a suitable caption - eg. "The Cessna 182 is a four-seat high performance, single-engine, light airplane" (copied from the first line)?--Fir0002 03:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed, but the fact of the matter is that few people will actually head over to the article, that's why it's only in your interest. -- Chris.B  |  talk  11:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Neutral This kind of shots baffles me: yes it's technically competent, but not exciting, nothing that will make you say "Wow". To be honest this is an easy shot, just going down to local recreational airport and you'll get plenty of opportunities. If it were an architectural shot people will start opposing on the grounds of "a better one can be taken", but apparently that only applies to architectural shots, so I'll remain neutral in here. --antilivedT 07:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Well I did try the out-of-the-square shot below but not many people liked it. However, given that it is a high quality and enc shot I think it is worthy. But just my opinion. --Fir0002 09:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know what make this picture a FP that is not present in another fine shot, other than the fact that you have a better camera (better sharpness, more natural tone mapping) and a slightly more dynamic angle. IMHO the failure in your other attempt is that the background falls in the uncanny valley: it's too blurry to be a "freeze-time" shot, and yet not blurry enough for a shallow DOF effect. Maybe check out ? They have some great, dynamic aircraft photos. --antilivedT 09:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Well that's really a less dramatic example of the above Arc de Triomphe - the technical edge makes the difference between FP and non FP material. Shallow DOF has nothing to do with shutter speed (except for the fact that contrary to what you seem to be saying is that it is achieved at high shutter speeds) - the blurred effect you identified is partly due to a relatively shallow DOF, but mainly to do with a slow shutter speed which gives it the motion blur (which is one of it's key features IMO). Anyway you're welcome to your opinion. --Fir0002 11:38, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Support Nice illustrative photo. Cacophony (talk) 22:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Support- all the criteria met.--Svetovid (talk) 01:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. This is really just a nit-pick, but I would have liked to see a slightly slower shutter speed so that the propeller didn't look "frozen". A bit of motion blur there would have given some life to an otherwise very static and (IMO) unappealing picture. Still, it's quite useful for what it is... very illustrative. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 20:05, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

MER-C 02:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)