New York City at night HDR

In my opinion, this image shows the possibilities of high dynamic range imaging far better than this picture, which is currently a featured picture.

• Nominate and support. - Wutschwlllm 16:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Oppose Too many artifacts around the light, the existing HDRI FA has other problems aswell and I would not support it if it was nominated today. HDRI can be done without artifacts/halos and posterization. This image has both, and is over and underexposed. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Oppose for reasons stated above. Also the bottom right corner is a big gray blur. -- Dgies 16:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Oppose - stunning image, but major artifacting and haloes. — Vanderdecken∴ ∫ ξ φ 17:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Oppose Is blurry in some areas. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 20:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Oppose. Despite HDR it still has lots of way under- and way over-exposed areas. -- Dschwen 16:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Oppose. softness aside, this image is downright blurry. Also too many very bright areas -- froth ^{T C} 19:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Support Nice photo. This is exactly what I would paint on my bedroom walls if I had the time and inclination to do so. TomStar81 ( Talk) 06:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• support. The over- and under-exposure makes it look quite etherial or surreal, which is what makes it worthwhile. Artistic value of a photo is not just about (or at all) how sharp (or whatever the term is) the representation is, but the mood it depicts. I've never seen this city in such light. It can be improved or cleaned, but then who wants to see just another image of New York at night? - Alsandro · T · w:ka: Th · T 07:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Since this is the first time I notice you username: Welcome and please check out WP:WIAFP. Crap, I connot do this without sounding condescending as hell. Sorry! -- Dschwen 08:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC) reply
  • I would love to have something like this on my wall. The halos just give it a bit of artistic touch and it looks like a painting. But, no, it is not FP quality. -- antilived ^{T | C | G} 08:57, 23 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Strong Support. This is just perfect. Great job. Ilikefood 18:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Oppose Desktop wallpaper yes, FP no. ~ trialsanderrors 09:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Weak Oppose: Great picture, but blurry. sign here — s d 3 1 4 1 5 13:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Oppose, far from perfect, distortion, not very illustrative of anything. Night Gyr ( talk/ Oy) 20:49, 22 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Comment Maybe you could crop it so that it would look better? --¿ Why 1 9 9 1 ^{ESP. | Sign Here} 01:45, 23 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Oppose Does not illustrate HDRI well, thus lowering enc. -- antilived ^{T | C | G} 08:57, 23 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Extremely Weak Oppose I would vote neutral but that does not accomplish anything and I am leaning a little more towards oppose than support for the blurriness in a few areas; great picture nonetheless. Wikipediarul e s 2221 02:38, 24 December 2006 (UTC) reply
• Great Emperor Support Best HDR pic I've seen, HDR pics were created for looking almost like real pics. So this is a good example of a FEATURED PIC.-- Walt e r Humala - Emperor of West Wikipedia | wanna Talk? 01:21, 25 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Not promoted MER-C 11:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC) reply