Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Kia Amanti 2005

Kia Amanti 2005 edit

Kia Amanti taken 2006.09.25 at an airport.

Uncropped version.

Reason: I believe it's a nice image to show the Amanti. The background doesn't detract from the subject, and it's a clean car.
Articles this image appears in: Kia Opirus
Creator: ~Crazytales (AAAA and ER!)
Nominator: ~Crazytales (AAAA and ER!)

Support — ~Crazytales (AAAA and ER!) 01:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose it has no wow factor, and the reflection of the car isn't very attractive. Also the background takes away from the rest of the image. ~ Arjun 01:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The resolution, wow factor, lighting (flash reflection) and background all aren't Ideal. One thing the picture has too much of though is artifacts which can be seen on the wheels and elsewhere. -Fcb981 01:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I can upload a 2856x2142 version with fewer artifacts. I can also try editing out the flash reflection on the turn signal. ~Crazytales (AAAA and ER!) 01:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
uploaded. Image:Kia Amanti 2005 big.jpg ~Crazytales (AAAA and ER!) 01:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the image is slightly worse, as it shows that simply it is just a car sitting in a neighborhood driveway. ~ Arjun 02:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Not really FP material. There are blown highlights in the sky and the background is quite distracting. --Tewy 02:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The opposite leans on the buildings kill it for me - Adrian Pingstone 09:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Quite grainy.. it could be much clearer than this. And the reflection of the silver SUV in the side of the car is glaring. Also the background is surreal- a pure white sky, perfect grass, a long row of identical drab buildings... where did you take it? --⁪froth^T 19:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I took it in the hangar section of a small local airport. ~Crazytales (AAAA and ER!) 19:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Ugh. Sorry, but as far as I'm concerned, this is just a perfectly ordinary gleaming car in a rather drab setting... Mrug² 20:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Just out of interest, where's the registration plate? Please excuse my ignorance. Mrug² 20:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - In Michigan, license plates are only required on the back of a car. ~Crazytales (AAAA and ER!) 00:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Not that this nom need any more opposers, but I do think that cars should be shot with a polariser to at least reduce the reflection if not eliminates them completely. Flash probably shouldn't have been used in this as natural light seems to be more than enough. Last, I believe you have quite a large speck on your lens when your took it as shown in the front shadow of the car. --antilived^{T | C | G} 23:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there any polarising filter for a consumer camera? I shot it with a Kodak EasyShare, as you can see from the Exif data. ~Crazytales (AAAA and ER!) 00:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Polarising filters are generic. You can simply get one for SLR's and just hold it in front of your lens! --antilived^{T | C | G} 00:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose- Not only is the picture fairly grainy, but the subject itself is generally bland. Its just a Kia, if anything someone needs to upload a picture of an Aston Martin or some other sort of expensive luxury car.--Kmd15 21:07, 17 February 2007(UTC)
- A common car and luxury car can have the same encyclopedic value. There are plenty of featured pictures of "bland" subjects. --Tewy 20:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 22:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]