Oppose Interesting picture in aesthetical terms. However, could be more informative if taken from a different angle. For example, none of the titles is clearly visible. Alvesgaspar17:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just FYI, most of these books didn't have titles on their spines (I think only the one that's visible in the pic), so there's not really anything to see there. Brighterorange13:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unadequat DOF, only the upper top of the middle books is in focus. And there is noise, probable caused by high iso. And for such old books I would like to see a more dim light --Simonizer09:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I would say that something with titles would be preferrable but I think this picture will suffice- it is especially touching with the water-soaked book in the middle—the preceding unsigned comment is byValerieTheBlonde (talk • contribs)
Neutral There's a lot to like here, but the eye gets drawn in the wrong direction somehow. I've uploaded what I hope is a nicer crop of the same image. Would also love to see Brighterorange take another attempt at this photo. Ben Aveling10:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for #2, the cropped version...The cropping has no purpose what so ever as I see, it, and doesno have the depth of the first pic--Vox Rationis14:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Info created by Brighterorange - uploaded by Brighterorange - nominated by Vox Rationis --Vox Rationis 01:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Support --Vox Rationis 01:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Oppose Interesting picture in aesthetical terms. However, could be more informative if taken from a different angle. For example, none of the titles is clearly visible. Alvesgaspar 17:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Neutral There's a lot to like here, but the eye gets drawn in the wrong direction somehow. I've uploaded what I hope is a nicer crop of the same image. Would also love to see Brighterorange take another attempt at this photo. Ben Aveling 10:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
