Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:EC-135 SP-HXX HEMS.JPG

File:EC-135 SP-HXX HEMS.JPG, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jul 2011 at 23:36:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:EC-135 SP-HXX HEMS.JPG Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:EC-135 SP-HXX HEMS.JPG

•  Info ewerything by Łukasz Wolf Golowanow (talk) 23:36, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
•  Support -- Łukasz Wolf Golowanow (talk) 23:36, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
•  Support wow --Butterfly austral (talk) 03:15, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
•  Support   ■ MMXX  ^talk  08:52, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
•  Support Yann (talk) 12:10, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
•  Support --Pudelek (talk) 12:34, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
•  Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:41, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
•  Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 18:13, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
•  Support --Stryn (talk) 18:52, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
•  Support --Cayambe (talk) 21:26, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose Sorry, but dull background, lack of clarity necessary for this type of image, and the need for a faster shutter speed to capture the blades without the blur makes me oppose. theMONO 01:40, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
  •  Info as regards blur: Mind you, dear friends, zero rotor blur is generally considered a flaw. Basically the same rule applies here, as it does for panning. The blur is supposed to indicate movement, and whereas in panning background blur indicates movement (of the object in relation to the background), the movement of propellers or rotors is generally the only way to indicate the status of a helicopter of propeller-driven airplane. Too little blur would be a valid reason to oppose, though far fetched. The presence of blur as a reason to oppose is far beyond the threshold of insanity. While the two opposing votes below are sound - I may agree with them or not, but they are sound - the demand for zero rotor movement is an insult and a half. Łukasz Wolf Golowanow (talk) 08:36, 7 July 2011 (UTC) PS File:Mi-2 Darłowo 2009 .JPG 1/1500, still blurred. Even with 1/2000 the blade tips would cover about 2-3 cm within the period and at 1:1 scale the blur would STILL be visible.
    •  Comment I agree with Airwolf's analysis, blur is sometimes a good thing, and this is one of those cases IMO. --99of9 (talk) 00:38, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
      •  Comment Yes, thank you for explaining, and that makes perfect sense. I was actually looking at motorcycle pictures (in some magazine) and studying the wheels and they too were as crystal clear as possible while retaining an element of blur, and I realized without that blur, I would have thought the motorcycles stationary. Thus, exceptions excluded, blur would almost have to be essential. I've struck out my comment below. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁galaxies 04:31, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose Sorry also :( Something about the image really bothers me. I don't like the crop, and it looks like a crop, if that makes sense. The helicopter seems just a smidge unsharp. I'm not familiar enough with heli images to know if rotor blur is unwanted (for the majority of times) or not, but I have to agree with Mono that here it doesn't seem to work, and I also agree that the background is kind of dull. I appreciate a non-distracting background, of course, but in this case, the lackluster steel color and the strange "smudge" shadow of waves make the image, overall, look kind of dirty. I think the copter is banking to the right, but it would be nice to have something to clarify the copter's motion through the sky. Wonderful red and yellow colors, interesting copter "shape", but really not something that stands out to me as a "great" copter image. (The color sure stands out, of course, but the image holistically just seems to be lacking.) – Kerαunoςcopia^◁galaxies 04:02, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose I find the central composition with flat background (no element of scale or height) somewhat boring and less than outstanding. --ELEKHH^T 07:32, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
•  Support -- MJJR (talk) 16:18, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
•  Support--Jebulon (talk) 17:26, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
•  Support -- Raghith 09:12, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
•  Support —stay (sic)! 16:25, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
•  Support --Karelj (talk) 10:11, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose per ELEKHH W.S. 11:27, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:56, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Vehicles