Oppose Great atmosphere, but boring composition. Too much unintersting sky, some picture elements in the foreground are missing too, in my opinion -- Simonizer09:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Great atmosphere, but boring composition. Too much unintersting sky, some picture elements in the foreground are missing too, in my opinion -- Simonizer09:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - ditto to Simonizer; nice idea, but the landscape apart from the fog isn't a very attractive one. Try to find a site without any ugly buildings. - MPF13:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice and informative (fogs are ground-level clouds, this picture shows both of the fog and the cloud perspective). -- Nl7408:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice and informative (fogs are ground-level clouds, this picture shows both of the fog and the cloud perspective). -- Nl7408:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I strongly suggest you keep the building as a feature that animates the image and gives a field depth to the image. The edit makes all the image too smooth with any contour for the eye, that's why it seems so boring: without it, you can't fix your eye to feel the light atmosphere, and you can't perceive the subtle color differences. Note also that white balancing is a bit strange (too much bluish, i.e. the white temperature is too high; this makes the greens too much grey, and it fades out all the colors). if you don't want colors, then use pure monochromatic grey images! Verdy p02:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC) Also the composition is bad: too much white shy on top (it's probably better to crop a significant part of it). Not enough subject at the bottom.[reply]