Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Wigwam Motel, Holbrook, AZ 04048u edit.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:Wigwam Motel, Holbrook, AZ 04048u edit.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Dec 2010 at 16:26:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info Wigwam Motel on Route 66 created by Carol M. Highsmith - edited, uploaded and nominated by PETER WEIS TALK 16:26, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Support -- PETER WEIS TALK 16:26, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Oppose heavy underexposed and some distortions at the right --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 16:43, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Support I agree, particularly the sky has a strong underexposure from left to right, but the composition is great, the colors are excellent, the contrast is very good, I think this is a FP. --Murdockcrc (talk) 18:01, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Oppose Per kaʁstn. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:26, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Oppose Looks totally artificial and affected to me. Too much aestheticism. Strong underexposure of the sky, strong overexposure of the white wigwams. Distortions. Too much "ground" in foreground... Maybe a good picture for a contest, not for "Commons", IMO.--Jebulon (talk) 22:07, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Info i don't see any underexposure in the sky at all. either you access a complete different image, or you are not aware of the outcomes of a polarizing filter. assuming good faith i think of the second case. note that mrs highsmith used such a technical device aligned 90° to the sun - resulting in what you refer to as underexposure. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 23:45, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Comment Assuming good faith, I suppose my english is not good enough to really enjoy this tone, which sounds a bit patronizing through translation. To be more clear : Polarizing filter or not (thanks for the link), "underexposure" or not (I'm only a learning amateur, thanks for correcting me), Mrs Highsmith or not, I dislike this sky very much, because I think it is unnatural and excessively manipulated-overprocessed-reworked. Only an opinion.--Jebulon (talk) 11:46, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Support per Murdockcrc--MASHAUNIX 14:17, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Oppose The composition is good, and might be even stronger without the last wigwam. However, while the sky is not underexposed, the variation in the sky's brightness looks too unnatural to me. One panel of the second wigwam is overexposed. --Avenue (talk) 03:08, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Oppose The sky Mulazimoglu (talk) 10:10, 16 December 2010 (UTC)