I just ran across this photo and thought it was an extremely striking and effective visualization of
wingtip vortices. It's certainly an unusual image of a subject that is difficult to photograph. Perhaps you'll agree.
Nominate and support. --
uberpenguin 23:20, 3 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Wow, shame its so fuzzy. Also, i almost think theres too much red, it barely seems like a vortex at all until you look carefully. Im on the fence on this. -
Lanoitarus(talk).:. 06:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Comment Pretty cool pic, but I have some problems with the quality. Have uploaded an edit, but I'm not sure I'll support yet. --
Fir0002 06:48, 4 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Comment It's horrible at high quality and pretty burned out and dirty at any resolution. The colour looks overstated, too. Not good enough for FP in my opinion even if it is a rare pic. I do like the shot though and I'd support if a better quality version could be found. ~
Veledan •
Talk 22:34, 4 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support --
Wikimol 19:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Weak Support
I like the .. a clearer picture would of course be better, but this is still cool.
drumguy8800 -
speak? 07:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose The image isn't all that appealing. There's too much red, and it's not that grand of a vortex. --
JPM 08:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Neutral. This is a really neat picture, but I wish it was clearer. --
jackohare 18:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose bad quality and I don't get it.
Renata3 05:27, 7 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support, but just. Sometimes, image clairity has to take a back seat to showing what an article is talking about. --
Tony(Talk),
VandalismNinja 03:18, 15 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. I agree with the last vote, that sometimes hard-to-capture phenomena have to sacrifice a little picture quality. But it's one of my all-time favorite aerodynamics pictures, and captures some fascinating and beautiful behavior in a striking way.
Aerodave 05:31, 15 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. I think some people are a bit spoiled by noisefree digital photos taken under optimal conditions. The quality here is not that bad. Properly some compromises was made to get more detail. This is a truly amazing photo. --
195.184.122.26 07:05, 15 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support Yes, image quality sucks big time, but it's really interesting.
Eyesclosed 20:10, 15 January 2006 (UTC)reply
support I agree with jackohare (and others) --
Treffer 01:15, 16 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Promoted Image:Airplane vortex edit.jpgRaven4x4x 08:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)reply
I just ran across this photo and thought it was an extremely striking and effective visualization of
wingtip vortices. It's certainly an unusual image of a subject that is difficult to photograph. Perhaps you'll agree.
Nominate and support. --
uberpenguin 23:20, 3 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Wow, shame its so fuzzy. Also, i almost think theres too much red, it barely seems like a vortex at all until you look carefully. Im on the fence on this. -
Lanoitarus(talk).:. 06:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Comment Pretty cool pic, but I have some problems with the quality. Have uploaded an edit, but I'm not sure I'll support yet. --
Fir0002 06:48, 4 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Comment It's horrible at high quality and pretty burned out and dirty at any resolution. The colour looks overstated, too. Not good enough for FP in my opinion even if it is a rare pic. I do like the shot though and I'd support if a better quality version could be found. ~
Veledan •
Talk 22:34, 4 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support --
Wikimol 19:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Weak Support
I like the .. a clearer picture would of course be better, but this is still cool.
drumguy8800 -
speak? 07:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose The image isn't all that appealing. There's too much red, and it's not that grand of a vortex. --
JPM 08:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Neutral. This is a really neat picture, but I wish it was clearer. --
jackohare 18:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose bad quality and I don't get it.
Renata3 05:27, 7 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support, but just. Sometimes, image clairity has to take a back seat to showing what an article is talking about. --
Tony(Talk),
VandalismNinja 03:18, 15 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. I agree with the last vote, that sometimes hard-to-capture phenomena have to sacrifice a little picture quality. But it's one of my all-time favorite aerodynamics pictures, and captures some fascinating and beautiful behavior in a striking way.
Aerodave 05:31, 15 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. I think some people are a bit spoiled by noisefree digital photos taken under optimal conditions. The quality here is not that bad. Properly some compromises was made to get more detail. This is a truly amazing photo. --
195.184.122.26 07:05, 15 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support Yes, image quality sucks big time, but it's really interesting.
Eyesclosed 20:10, 15 January 2006 (UTC)reply
support I agree with jackohare (and others) --
Treffer 01:15, 16 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Promoted Image:Airplane vortex edit.jpgRaven4x4x 08:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)reply