Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Sct Mathias xmas illumination 2010-12-14.jpg

LED christmas illumination in Viborg, Denmark
Voting period ends on 9 Nov 2011 at 19:18:25 (UTC)
 * Reason:It is a well-composed, high quality photo of a christmas illumination in a Danish town, showing also how far LED illumination has come in producing a pleasant, warm glow, resembling incandescent light bulbs. Well, and its about that season soon...
 * Articles in which this image appears:LED lamp, Christmas lights
 * FP category for this image:Featured pictures/Places/Urban
 * Creator:Slaunger


 * Support as nominator --Slaunger (talk) 19:18, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Support -- I always liked this picture and think it adds considerable value to Christmas lights. I have replaced the original picture of the article (too small) with this one. Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:32, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose I think we can do much better than this. The overall feel of the picture is very snapshotty. The detail is lacking. The focus is way too shallow, and a lot of the lights, which is what the photo is actually meant to be of, are out of focus. I also don't like the angle and composition. The lights are off centre and the low angle make the floor and the bikes way too much of a prominent part of the picture. JFitch   (talk)  01:24, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking your time to review my image. Composition is much a matter of taste, and I will not argue, whether you like that or not. I have used f/13, and I fail to see how that could give shallow focus. IMO the DOF is excellent and no lights are out of focus. If anything, the aperture is on the high side, but I do not see sign of high aperture diffraction (but maybe that is the effect you seem to be seeing?). Concerning overall image quality I have used ISO 100, and an exposure time of 2.5 s using a tripod placed firmly on the ground in no wind. I am very sure there were no vibrations during the exposure. I was laying on the street, and the photo is far from having a snapshotty composition. I have considered many angles and times of day as for instance this centered composition. I did find the centered composition boring though, and decided the frog angle of view was more eye-catching and interesting. I considered taking the photo in the late shop opening hours, but decided not to, because signs on the street placed durring opening hours gave too much visual clutter in the composition. Concerning the floor and bikes, they add EV. Since the photo was taken last year, the floor has been replaced by another type of granite bricks, and the bikes illustrates a typical means of transportation for going to the shopping mall to that entrance. There is another entrance, which is normally reached by car. Thus, both the floor and bicycles are a deliberate element in the composition. I am happy to see that another reviewer below, sees the point with the bikes (not that you are wrong in not appreciating this element, opinions differ, and I respect that). --Slaunger (talk) 11:43, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The mall itself and therefore the bikes and floor, have no relevance whatsoever. It isn't in an article for the mall, it is in an article for the lights. JFitch   (talk)  03:09, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Support The bikes are a nice touch. JJ Harrison (talk) 05:31, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose I had the same first impressions as JFitch, and after clicking through and reading your explanation I'm still not convinced that this is good enough for a FP. My main concern is the composition which doesn't have a clear focal point. Shooting from the gutter drags the whole image down to earth, rather than focusing on the christmas lights above the street. Personally, I much prefer the centred composition, I find it sets the scene better (snow and people) and the higher angle fits the subject more. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 18:14, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. My overall impression is merely that it's a fine photo technically and does well to illustrate a typically lit city street in Europe at Christmas time, but it doesn't come across as particularly notable or interesting to view, and is bit monochromatic and dull. You're right that it does replicate the warm glow of incandescent lighting quite well, but for photography, I wouldn't necessarily say that's a good thing aesthetically as I find it a bit too reminiscent of cheap sodium lighting. ;-) &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  08:45, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Diliff. I found your review comments useful. --Slaunger (talk) 10:59, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

--Makeemlighter (talk) 02:00, 10 November 2011 (UTC)