Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Audi e-tron
.jpg)
- Reason
- A good retouch that improved the educational values of the original image, good quality and clean photograph of Audi e-tron, one of the best and cleanest (no other objects in the image) available images of vehicles.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Audi R8, Audi R4
- Creator
- Photographed by: Der Wolf im Wald, Retouched by: LiveChocolate
- Support as nominator --LiveChocolate (talk) 22:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- Support Good shot and the edit helped a lot IMO. Was going to nominate this myself --Muhammad(talk) 01:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- Support Awesome. Kangxi Emperor 康熙帝 (talk) 15:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose. The reflections on the floor and image in the background detract quite heavily from the composition, and the uneven lighting makes this less than ideal for an illustration of the car. Mostlyharmless (talk) 00:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
- Support Very nice image. Reflection doesn't bother me and given that this is a yet to be released model we can't expect absolute perfection, although this isn't all that far from it. --Leivick (talk) 08:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
- Support: I tried to understand the problem with the reflections. I don't see an issue there, nor do I have a problem with what's on the wall. Not perfect, perhaps, but you're hardly going to get a car in a white cube. Maedin\talk 22:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
- Support I agree with mostlyharmless that point sources aren't the best way to light a car, but it is what you are probably going to get in a showroom or exhibit. Noodle snacks (talk) 06:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose Distracting reflections and poor lighting. The reflections from that blue background thing are the deal-breaker for me. I see no reason not to insist on perfection here since we'll be able to get more pictures of the car. Makeemlighter (talk) 03:43, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
- That might not be the case - it is a concept car at the moment. Noodle snacks (talk) 03:46, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
- It's not unreasonable to note that lighting etc. is often less than ideal at car shows (see the Toyota concepts article for comparison, with this image as one done well). But there are similar problems photographing rare animals in the wild. And of course those aren't sitting still, set up for photography! I don't think there's any reason to lower the standard here. Mostlyharmless (talk) 04:10, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
- The problem I see with the comparison you make is that the animal's natural habitat is an acceptable element of the photograph—even desired. Cars and other vehicles, on the other hand, seem to get a bad deal; on the street, there's too much clutter, or too many people, or other cars. Or, they are a bit dirty, even though, like animals, a spotless car in its natural environment is a little hard to find! At a show, the spotlights (and the super sexy shiny wax :p) are considered problematic. As are any background elements (which would be very difficult to avoid). At this rate, we'll never have an Audi e-tron FP, or many other cars for that matter, :) Until, of course, we actually find someone who owns a hot car and is willing to drive it to a seaside cliff at sunset, clean and wax it while in position, and then let us photograph it to our FPC's delight. Maedin\talk 07:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
- I don't buy that. There are difficulties in taking all featured pictures. What really bugs me about this image is that there appears to be a large dark space on the right. I can't know for sure what the photograph would have been like otherwise, but I suspect that there are better camera angles. Anyway, for better or worse it's an image with poor composition. Mostlyharmless (talk) 23:15, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
- The problem I see with the comparison you make is that the animal's natural habitat is an acceptable element of the photograph—even desired. Cars and other vehicles, on the other hand, seem to get a bad deal; on the street, there's too much clutter, or too many people, or other cars. Or, they are a bit dirty, even though, like animals, a spotless car in its natural environment is a little hard to find! At a show, the spotlights (and the super sexy shiny wax :p) are considered problematic. As are any background elements (which would be very difficult to avoid). At this rate, we'll never have an Audi e-tron FP, or many other cars for that matter, :) Until, of course, we actually find someone who owns a hot car and is willing to drive it to a seaside cliff at sunset, clean and wax it while in position, and then let us photograph it to our FPC's delight. Maedin\talk 07:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
- It's not unreasonable to note that lighting etc. is often less than ideal at car shows (see the Toyota concepts article for comparison, with this image as one done well). But there are similar problems photographing rare animals in the wild. And of course those aren't sitting still, set up for photography! I don't think there's any reason to lower the standard here. Mostlyharmless (talk) 04:10, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
- That might not be the case - it is a concept car at the moment. Noodle snacks (talk) 03:46, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose as far as I can tell this is an image of the vehicle at concept stage - the final product could be visually very different. It is misleadingly presented as an actual car to be produced in one article and a does not significantly contribute to the second. Guest9999 (talk) 06:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
No consensus --Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 01:04, 27 February 2010 (UTC)