Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/LAFD ladder truck

LAFD (Los Angeles Fire Dept) ladder truck

 * Reason:come on, it's a lovely sharp high resolution stitched panorama, but not of a landscape - of a fire truck
 * Articles this image appears in:Fire apparatus, Los Angeles Fire Department
 * Creator:Mfield


 * Support as nominator --Mfield (talk) 01:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Support I wanted to oppose for a very distracting background, but this truck is just too pretty, and I'm sure it's very difficult to get a good angle of a big engine like this in such good lighting. If you had set fire to one of the houses in the background it could have improved its encyclopedic value, though. ;-) Fletcher (talk) 02:41, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Follow up Question: is there some particular reason for stitching this image, instead of just using a wide angle lens?  Fletcher (talk) 03:43, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't have a camera body that will capture a 5500 wide image with any lens. Mfield (talk) 04:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Which focal did you use ? Angle doesn't look this wide. But I'd say increasing resolution is also a reason for stitching. Blieusong (talk) 21:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This is two shots from the sharpest lens I own, a 35mm - aside from the higher resolution over a single WA shot, the result is much sharper edges and corners with zero CA. Mfield (talk) 22:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Did you mean "widest" ? ;) I disagree with the CA, I often have CA left, mostly on the borders that were not between two pictures. However, I agree that CA on overlapping parts are generally taken away. Blieusong (talk) 22:33, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Neutral, for now. Once the stich error is fixed, I think I'll support. If I may add one suggestion, cropping some of the top might help the background not distract so much. Clegs (talk) 16:01, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I restitched and replaced the original so please continue. Mfield (talk) 22:42, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose I like the subject, but unfortunately the background is just too distracting. -- Grandpafootsoldier (talk) 01:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, its a typical LA street and they are pretty distracting and messy looking. You aren't really going to find a LA fire truck in an undistracting environment sadly, or be able to fit a truck of this size in and get enough distance from the background to be able to throw it out of focus. Plus I think the size of the houses really gives a sense of scale to the size of these ladder trucks Mfield (talk) 01:48, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 *  Weak support per Fletcher. Mostlyharmless (talk) 06:22, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose - No WOW factor at all. Not to mention that the quality isn't great either (Specially since it's stitched). Seriously not FP. Quality picture, maybe. --Arad (talk) 20:42, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe you'd rather I created a raytraced version and uploaded that instead. But I'll humor you for a second - what's your issue with the quality being 'not great'- its sharp from corner to corner, well exposed, has low distortion and zero noise or CA? Maybe point me to a more detailed photo of a fire engine. Mfield (talk) 20:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Still waiting.....? Mfield (talk) 01:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Support What the heck, I love fire trucks, and, to plagiarize Fletcher, "this truck is just too pretty" to say no to. I agree that your setting fire to one of the houses would have helped the image for FP candidacy, but I also suggest that you might not have had access to promote it until after your trial and conviction for arson.  The houses are very typically Los Angeles neighborhood houses, by the way, so, in my opinion, you've framed the fire truck very well.  --Blechnic (talk) 21:05, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. I disagree with Arad that theres no wow, although that term will always be subjective. Often, for me, the wow is in the detail and the quality of the composition. It might be a straightforward and simple image, but in our busy, messy world, simple compositions are actually quite difficult to shoot! For example, I often have to wait half an hour or an hour for the right combination of lighting, absence of cars/people/other distractions (unless I want them in the shot to help the illustration) etc. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 10:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I can no more agree with this, and hope that one realises that a straightforward composition doesn't mean there's no work/attempts/thoughts behind. I also often wait "half hours" before being satisfied with conditions, and go for the shot. Sometimes, I also wait for the good weather (typically clear sky sunsets, after rains) before deciding to jump on the RER (french underground system) to Paris. Blieusong (talk) 22:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

This article was promoted by -- Meld    shal   13:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC).
 * Support By the way :) Blieusong (talk) 22:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose per grandpa and Arad. Intothewoods29 (talk) 00:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Support.--ragesoss (talk) 02:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

--jjron (talk) 04:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC)