Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Arge Bam Arad edit.jpg

Image:Arge Bam Arad edit.jpg - not featured edit

Info created by Arad — uploaded by Arad — nominated by Arad
Support Amazing photo of Arge Bam which was partly destroyed by the 2003 earthquake. It has a very good quality and it's pretty rare. Thanks if advance for your votes. Arad 22:13, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral It looks as if it was heavily edited (Duplicate layer, blur it, set it to "overlay" or normal with some transparency and you get sth like that. I'm not saying that you did that, probably it's fault of unsharp original.) --Erina 07:23, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too small, overexposed. Lycaon 07:51, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose 50:50 composition (too much sky), exposure and glow. --Dschwen 08:13, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The quality of the picture is not very good. You say pictures of Bam are really rare. Why? (I haven't searched, but if I remember correctly it is a relatively big city, isn't it?) CyrilB 20:58, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the edit is half the size of the original - hardly an improvement. The objects disturbing the sky in the original image look more like noise filtering artifacts / JPEG compresion artifacts than noise. Overall even the original looks overprocessed, not noisy. If possible, could you please upload the "real original" as produced by the camera? IMO with different filtering techniques better image quality can be obtained, and the original is large enough so part of the sky could be cropped, making it more pleasing 2/3 compostion. --Wikimol 21:32, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition and especially technical quality are quite bad. Only if this building had been destroyed by the earthquake this picture would have some historical value in case it were really rare, which I rather doubt. Roger McLassus 15:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Looks like a fake or miniture model --Digon3 17:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ss181292 09:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC) - composition might be better, what is very good in this picture is taht it shows the power of the Sun at this latitudes. Little overexposure is ok.[reply]
Oppose Composition. Highly overexposed, perhaps this is the reason the textures looks unnatural as Digon3 says. Francisco M. Marzoa 11:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Dreamlike... like a picture of cartoon. Stephane8888 21:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Haunting. Beautiful. Cary "Bastiq▼e"

Bass ^demandez 20:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think the picture is so good that people think it looks fake. Arad 22:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Spoken 23:33, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Poor quality, overexposed and over-processed. Historical value is small as the building was only destroyed in 2003 and prior to that was much photographed as a tourist attraction. --Yummifruitbat 01:18, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

5 support, 7 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured Roger McLassus 07:36, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]