Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Vista de Ciudad Ho Chi Minh desde Bitexco Financial Tower, Vietnam, 2013-08-14, DD 13.JPG

File:Vista de Ciudad Ho Chi Minh desde Bitexco Financial Tower, Vietnam, 2013-08-14, DD 13.JPG, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jan 2014 at 19:22:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Night view of Ho Chi Minh City from Bitexco Financial Tower, Vietnam Poc o² 19:22, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 19:22, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 22:46, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Shaky tripod? Or do people actually drive like that? Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 23:11, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hard to tell, the tripod is pretty robust but the location, in the 49th floor of the second tallest building in Vietnam, could be the cause. Anyhow, the picture itself is not "shaked". Poc o² 23:38, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It kind of looks like the shaking tails off at the end so it might be from the shutter actuation. I don't have a ton of experience with this kind of photography. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 23:55, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The streetlights throughout the picture are not blurry, so it's definitely not the camera. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:06, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:06, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 10:16, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice composition. I am not sure but wasn't a similiar image already nominated? Or do I just remember from QIC? --Tuxyso (talk) 10:40, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You promoted this one to QI some days ago. Poc o² 11:41, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, OK. Both are nice. --Tuxyso (talk) 13:49, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm sorry, but I don't see anything special in the composition, perhaps because it was shot from so high up relative to the other buildings. It looks like just another competently-done nighttime cityscape, a QI for sure but not an FP. Daniel Case (talk) 17:21, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Halavar (talk) 00:30, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:03, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like this picture, composition is really nice. But it's blurred. Also quiet noisy but it does not bother me. I think ISO 100 was not a right decision. Exposure time 8 seconds is a lot and there is always some camera shake. ISO 200 or 400 do not cause too much noise. It would have given you a lot better exposure time and less blurry result. I also don't like the DoF. Both bigger and smaller aperture would have given better result. With big aperture and focus on the middle bridge would have given you nice bokeh at the distance. Smaller would have given you more detail at the distance. Average aperture has given you average result. --Urmas Haljaste (talk) 12:12, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 11:13, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 21:27, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ricardo Esteban Gutierrez (talk) 16:46, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support  Richard  [®]  18:52, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support /St1995 11:57, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 00:18, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Cityscapes