Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Wingtip vortex

Wingtip vortex


I just ran across this photo and thought it was an extremely striking and effective visualization of wingtip vortices. It's certainly an unusual image of a subject that is difficult to photograph. Perhaps you'll agree.


 * Nominate and support. -- uberpenguin 23:20, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Wow, shame its so fuzzy. Also, i almost think theres too much red, it barely seems like a vortex at all until you look carefully. Im on the fence on this. -Lanoitarus (talk) .:. 06:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Pretty cool pic, but I have some problems with the quality. Have uploaded an edit, but I'm not sure I'll support yet. --Fir0002 06:48, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Flcelloguy (A note? ) 22:14, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment It's horrible at high quality and pretty burned out and dirty at any resolution. The colour looks overstated, too.  Not good enough for FP in my opinion even if it is a rare pic. I do like the shot though and I'd support if a better quality version could be found. ~ Veledan • Talk 22:34, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support --Wikimol 19:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I like the edit.. a clearer picture would of course be better, but this is still cool. drumguy 8800  - speak? 07:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose The image isn't all that appealing. There's too much red, and it's not that grand of a vortex. --JPM 08:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose per JPM. enochlau (talk) 11:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutral. This is a really neat picture, but I wish it was clearer. --jackohare 18:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose bad quality and I don't get it. Renata3 05:27, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support, but just. Sometimes, image clairity has to take a back seat to showing what an article is talking about. --Tony (Talk), Vandalism Ninja 03:18, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. I agree with the last vote, that sometimes hard-to-capture phenomena have to sacrifice a little picture quality. But it's one of my all-time favorite aerodynamics pictures, and captures some fascinating and beautiful behavior in a striking way. Aerodave 05:31, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. I think some people are a bit spoiled by noisefree digital photos taken under optimal conditions. The quality here is not that bad. Properly some compromises was made to get more detail. This is a truly amazing photo. --195.184.122.26 07:05, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Yes, image quality sucks big time, but it's really interesting. Eyesclosed 20:10, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * support I agree with jackohare (and others) --Treffer 01:15, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Raven4x4x 08:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

