Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Lightning over Oradea Romania 3.jpg

Image:Lightning over Oradea Romania 3.jpg, not featured

Voting period ends on 10 Dec 2008 at 17:43:01

•  Info created by Nelumadau - uploaded by Diego pmc - nominated by Diego pmc -- diego_pmc (talk) 17:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
•  Support -- diego_pmc (talk) 17:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
•  Support -- Manuel R. (talk) 19:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Good illustrative value, WOW effect present, quite nice. --Aktron (talk) 11:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Amazing picture! R-T-C Tim (talk) 14:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
•  Support OK, guality could be better, but wow is here. --Karelj (talk) 19:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Georgez (talk) 19:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
•  Support -- MJJR (talk) 19:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose Poor image quality. Lycaon (talk) 20:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
•  Support – Great picture, plenty of wow, is encyclopedic too. Jerry teps (talk) 21:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per Lycaon + bad foreground --Pom² (talk) 21:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Fine for me. How do you turn this on (talk) 00:49, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose - Per previous opposers -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose building in front -- Gorgo (talk) 20:19, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
•  Info See Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Lightning over Oradea Romania 2.jpg for nomination of an earlier version of the same image]]. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 23:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose poor foreground. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 23:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
•  Comment -- in my opinion the foreground helps the image by adding contrast to it. This crop shows what I'm referring to — IMO the image is just too dull like that. The full also looks somewhat more striking (probably from seeing the houses so close to the lightning). diego_pmc (talk) 06:11, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per other opposers --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 22:25, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
•  Support capturing 4 lighting bolts makes this a fascinating image. This is the kind of image that has some personality... a story if you will. --J.smith (talk) 16:49, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
•  Support I like the multiple strikes. --Dori - Talk 18:29, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
•  Support with reserves. This picture almost has a "Magritte-esque" feeling to it, in the contrast between the sky, almost as lit as during the day, and the houses and streets, dark and sparely lit by street lamps. The foreground thus has to remain, imho. The small piece of a pointy roof, in the foreground, could be left out, on the other hand. As for the overall image quality, it seems fine, yet not optimal. The wow factor of the picture makes up for it, though. --JY Rehby (talk) 00:12, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
•  Support --Joku Janne (talk) 10:04, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose unfortunate setting --Simonizer (talk) 11:58, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Quote from the guidelines: "A bad picture of a very difficult subject is a better picture than a good picture of an ordinary subject" (Varcos (talk) 09:40, 9 December 2008 (UTC))
•  Neutral Stunning subject matter, but the composition could use a little adjustment to be really evocative. Otherwise sound. JalalV (talk) 04:47, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose The foreground ruins it for me. --Estrilda (talk) 16:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Good quality image. I opposse the opposers. Composition is good, exposure is very good, especially considering the dynamic range, the pictures captures good detail in the shadow areas, and good detail is retained in the lighter areas. The foreground is inmaterial insofar as it does not affect the nature of the phenomenom. From the technical photographic point of view, which in this particular case is synthesized on exposure and composition no one can argue bad technique, and from the documentary and encyclopaedic point of view, it is a very good representation of a natural event that just happened to be captured in an urban setting. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 17:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

result: 14 support, 8 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. --Pom² (talk) 19:01, 10 December 2008 (UTC)(UTC)