This portrait photo shows the tower in best size, including part of the hill, but not too small, and the night illumination reveals most details of clock, roof and bells. -- Ikar.us (talk)
Comment As VIC guidelines presently state "In general, the VI for a building scope should be a daylight picture", see Commons:VISC#Buildings, I think it is worth a confrontation with a dalylight picture at least. For instance File:Graz - Uhrenturm1.jpg (same author), with more natural colors and which better shows the tower implantation in addition. --Myrabella (talk) 22:12, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You may open a MVR, of course. I found in that image the sunny side too bright and the shadows too dark, resulting in poor contrast of details. --Ikar.us (talk) 23:00, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And I imagine night shots as dominated by bright lanterns, which hinder good exposure of the building, and hide some parts. This image is free of disturbing light spots. --Ikar.us (talk) 23:11, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per guidelines. Furthermore a daylight images is what most people would see of this tower and would be the most representative IMO. There is quite a bit of choice too AFAIK. W.S.05:40, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
