Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Kimi Räikkönen

Kimi Räikkönen

Reason: Very smooth picture IMO. No blur so it illustrates a 2007 Formula One car very well and over 1000x1000 in resolution.
Articles this image appears in: Kimi Räikkönen, Ferrari F2007, 2007 Australian Grand Prix, Scuderia Ferrari
Creator: emilgh

Support as nominator — Phill ^{talk Edits} 15:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Pleasing to the eye, has historical value ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 15:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Historical value? How can you see in this photo he was about to win that season? A picture of him on the victory podium would have historical value, this hasn't. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support Technically good shot of fast-moving subject. Slight grain/pixelation is asphalt of no consequence. Oh, wait, hey! It's tilted... ;-) --Janke | Talk 17:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support, perfect photo, and it's always hard to find free good quality images in this category of photos.--Svetovid 18:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
question considering the direction the road is curving, isn't the tilt in the wrong direction? Debivort 19:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with you there Debivort. Perhaps the tilt is trying to copy Räikkönen use of the steering wheel? --Phill ^{talk Edits} 21:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Formula One racecourses are flat, so any tilt would be of the artistic variety. ~ trialsanderrors 22:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, some Formula race course aren't flat, Spa-Francorchamps for example. --Phill ^{talk Edits} 08:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Excellent image but it'd be worth taking a look at copyright issues surrounding the logos from sponsors... --Fir0002 22:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point. But then again one could say that about Image:Webber usgp 2004.jpg and Image:Bruno Senna 2006 Australian Grand Prix-3.jpg. I guess another point would be that if they didn't want their logos being on pictures that are (hopefully! :-P) uploaded to Wikipedia they would've banned the use of cameras at Grand Prix events some time ago IMHO. --Phill ^{talk Edits} 07:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. High quality picture of hard to get subject. I would however like to actual motion blur in images of F1 cars. How else are we supposed to know they're even moving? I would've supported it if it was 999x999 and in focus too. A big size image is nice, but there is a point at which it becomes overkill. Over 3000 pixels wide is something I expect of a picture from the Hubble Telescope, not the photograph of a car. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I initially uploaded this image to WikiCommons in a slightly smaller size, and Flickreview (a bot) replaced it with the largest version possible.--Diniz 14:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support Great picture very clear --St.daniel ^Talk 23:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
oppose tilt seems un-necessary, and gives the impression of a banked course. Debivort 07:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – There's something off with the colours. It doesn't strike me as a photo from this season but a photo from years ago. I just don't have the 'wow' factor with this photo. (Comment: How many photographers follow Forumla 1? I'm sure free good quality Formula 1 photos aren't that rare.) Also agree with Debivort that the tilt is misleading. Centy 14:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response: With respect to "years ago" comment, it is incorrect. Kimi Raikkonen joined the Ferrari team just this year. Kalyan 16:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ferrari returned to this old shade of red for this season, so the colours in the image are accurate. Prolog 03:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I think the image looks great. I would have loved an head-on shots. Kalyan 16:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Until I can get some more concrete answer to whether or not it's legal to license copyrighted logos etc under a free license --Fir0002 09:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't think that any of the companies would wish to sue Wikipedia over the image if that's what you mean, as the companies pay for something like this: Free exposure. And considering that many people visit Wikipedia every day it would seem like the "ultimate advert" for them, I guess. Another point would be that some companies who take motor racing photos, such as Sutton Motorsport Images, have clients who pay for images like these and none of that money goes to the companies who's logos maybe on the image. Like I said before, if this image fails because of this one thing then that would mean that the other images I've mentioned above will have to be as well. --Phill ^{talk Edits} 10:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I believe the logos would come under some kind of Freedom of Panorama. The main focus of the picture is the car, the logos just happened to be there. Both Image:Peugeot 206 WRC.jpg and Image:Las Vegas Strip panorama.jpg contain logos, and have received FP status. AlexJ 11:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Excellent example of a Formula One car of today. Royalbroil 13:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Almost perfectly in focus, good lighting and white balance, well over 1000x1000 in resolution SquareShot97 20:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Very impressive image and a great illustration of the F2007. I don't think the logos are an issue. Prolog 03:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 10:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]