Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/MSM sunset.jpg

MSM sunset

 * Reason:This is a beautiful capture. More importantly, detailed pictures of Mont Saint-Michel are rare, one usually finds pictures taken from hundreds of yards away. Also, the minimal noise level (despite the light in this shot) is difficult to achieve.
 * Articles this image appears in:Mont Saint-Michel
 * Creator:User:Blieusong


 * Support as nominator &mdash; DMCer 09:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 *  Oppose  While it may have been a tough exposure, the lighting is blown in places as well as the shadows in others. What a beautiful place though -Fcb981 15:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose, it is blown out in places and that is something you get in night shots... and it's surprisingly crisp, but I don't think this image really does a great job of representing the subject. Part of it is that maybe for old structures like this night shots are out of place because the lighting doesn't fit, and part of it is because it's difficult to see the main structures.  Definitely a lovely place. gren グレン 18:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm user Benh from commons and the author of the picture. I uploaded another version of the candidate which has brighter dark parts since it was taken a few minutes before. It's also post processed to help. I also rotated it slightly to the left since it was tilted. Unfortunately, there's a car coming the other way which spoils the picture... Blieusong 12:28, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Support original The headlights in the lighter version does spoil it. Although the original does have a few blown highlights, it's not more than expected from a long exposure night shot. The lighting also creates a more dramatic images compared to the lighter one. Besides the few blown highlights, the images suffers from no other significant problems. Very unique and encyclopedic pic.  Jumping cheese   Cont @ct 14:00, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Support edit 2 or 3 Edit 3 is a little too light for my taste, but still a very stunning pic.  Jumping cheese   Cont @ct 10:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I've found another picture, taken after the first two ones, which may addresses most of the flaws mentionned above. Blieusong 17:46, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Edit 3 (My own) I think it looks good. more detail in the bright areas and more in the dark. -Fcb981 19:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Support Edit 3, it looks quite good this way, only some bits are still a little bright. If it were any darker though the other bits would be too dark, so I suppose this is the best that can be done. typhoon  chaser  06:48, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Support edit 2, weak support all others. Noclip 19:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Support final version - This sort of image is very technically demanding to take. &mdash; BillCtalk 23:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Support edits 2 and 3. I've looked at Flickr to find better daylight pictures, with little succcess. ~ trialsanderrors 23:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Support edits 2 & 3 TomStar81 (Talk) 05:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Original or Edit 2 Only I love the dark sky of the original. The most important thing that I love in this picture is the mood of the dark sky and the castle. I like the detail in edit 3 but it's too bright for me. So I support those with dark sky. Only one question, Are those white dots dead pixels or stars? Because they look weird. --Arad 02:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Dead pixles don't move.--DMCer 00:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * they are stars (look at picture in chronological order, edit1, original and then edit2 to check) and I yap I found them "weird" too. Since I'm here, I Oppose Edit3 which looks too unnatural/overprocessed to my taste. Blieusong 19:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Support edit 2. Edit 1 and 3 are too light in color and the original is too dark. - Mgm|(talk) 11:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Support- All versions are nice =-] --Penubag 08:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)penubag
 * Support - Edit two. Edit three looks waaaay too bright - Conor Campbell - 20:58, 14 April 2007 (GMT).
 * Support Edit 2, 3 does look too bright.8thstar 21:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

--KFP (talk | contribs) 15:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)