Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Bruno Senna 2006 Australian Grand Prix-3.jpg

Bruno Senna

Taken by me at the 2006 Australian Grand Prix. I think it illustrates a Formula Three car quite well, and gives a good sense of speed. It is being used in Bruno Senna, Dallara and Formula Three.

Nominate and support edit2. - Windsok 01:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've uploaded a version. Support either. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-09 02:32

Comment You should not make edits from a jpeg file, as it is already compressed, and when you recompress even more quality is lost. I have uploaded a straight version if that is preferred, processed from the RAW uncompressed image. The colour in your edit looks totally wrong, I believe the colour of my image is more accurate, though I have toned down the saturation slightly. --Windsok 05:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Original is better (edit is too bright, too yellowy, etc.), but neither is great. I think a picture with a higher viewpoint - more above the car, say - would illustrate it better. How is a Formula Three car different from, say, a Formula One car? From this picture, I (very much a non-expert, non-fan, little-interested) have little idea. zafiroblue05 | Talk 03:37, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The obvious visual differences are the small front and rear wings, and the fact that there are no fancy aerodynamic devices all over the bodywork. --Windsok 05:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support Edit When I think about it, I can't say that I've ever seen a photo of this quality this close up of a speeding race car. You have to admit that the photographer has both talent and a steady hand...I think it's a great photo that meets all the criteria. Nilington 05:11 9 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support. It's not even just a "steady hand" - you have to quickly track in the direction of the car to get it still like that (notice the blurred background). Either of the edits is ok, probably prefer something in the middle (not as garish as the first edit, but brighter than the second). Stevage 09:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Preference for Edit 3. Stevage 09:31, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support Original - Straighening the thing out makes it less appealing. - Hahnch e n 10:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Edit 1 Anonymous _anonymous_Have a Nice Day 11:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I've held off on voting for a while to see if the image (or edits) would grow on me. I'm impressed by the good job done panning as you shot, but it just doesn't have that 'wow' factor for me. (Side note: Can somebody comment on the legal issues surrounding the presence of trademarked corporate logos in an image that is freely licensed without permission of the companies? Maybe there's no issue, but I think there might be.) -- moondigger 14:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It's alright because it's a photograph of a 3D object, not a scan/screenshot of a 2D image. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-09 21:07
Support second edit (straightened from raw).Changing my vote to Support third edit, Brian's. Very nice. --Golbez 17:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support 2nd edit nice work. chowells 19:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Edit 2. Very nice. howch e ng {chat} 22:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support ~~2nd~~ Edit 3 (though origional and seconds edit I would support as well. I wouldnt mind it a bit brghter, but the first one goes too far.say1988 23:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've uploaded an auto-levelled version of the 2nd edit; it's not as bright as the first edit. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-09 23:19
Support Brian's fourth edit is nice. --Mad Max 04:20, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like them all but I think the original is the most interesting. -Aled D 12:59, 11 June 2006 (UTC) Support Brian's Edit I now change my preference to the last edit(Brian's). -Aled D 21:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Brian's edit (2nd one - ie the pic at the bottom) --Fir0002 00:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Brian's second edit. The greens and reds look just right. Staxringold _talk^contribs 01:06, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Either 2nd or 3rd edit, slight pref for 3rd. There's not much wrong with this, and the Formula Three article definitely needs some good pics. --jjron 14:16, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Support high quality photo, must have been hard to take. 2nd edit as it is flater and brighter.--Childzy ^{(Talk|Clarets)} 21:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support Original I actually like the fact that the first image is titled to the side (it makes it more interesting). A brighter version of the titled image would be better, but if no one wants to then the original is still good.--SomeStranger^(t|c) 12:03, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
SUPPORT ANYJosen 18:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd rather see a picture with a more front-on view, it's hard to identify the distinctive features of this class from the side. Also, I feel the angled version works better at conveying the speed and action in the event. I'm not too hot on picking any of these for the first reason, but if we do use any I'd like it to be at the original angle, tweaked if necessary for levels and such. Night Gyr 04:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Edit 2. Better colors and more appealing. Advanced 17:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support edit 2. Brian's are too bright. — Vildricianus 14:18, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support edit 2. Hurricanehink (talk) 02:55, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support edit 2.--Childzy ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 19:41, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cut Original with colour Edit 3 THEPROMENADER 22:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Bruno_Senna_2006_Australian_Grand_Prix-3.jpg. Edit 2 definately seems the most popular to me. Raven4x4x 08:03, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]