Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Siegestor

Siegestor
Voting period ends on 6 Aug 2013  at 15:41:44 (UTC)
 * Reason:High quality and high EV
 * Articles in which this image appears:Siegestor
 * FP category for this image:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
 * Creator:Der Wolf im Wald


 * Support as nominator --Tomer T (talk) 15:41, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose The image is overall very over-exposed, particularly in the bottom left corner due to the headlights. This image would be better served with a lower shutter speed, I think. -- mcshadypl T C  19:11, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I wonder whether the very low shutter speed doesn't just allow us to focus more on the subject, rather than the inevitable handful of blurred cars? I'd be interested to hear what some of our regular photographers think of this shot. I love it, but I'm going to hold off support until I've heard some more views. J Milburn (talk) 23:33, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with you, I prefer the long exposure in this case. Some people consider any and all blurring to be a bad thing, but I think visible cars in the foreground would be a big distraction. With a shorter shutter speed, even if you did 'freeze' the cars, you'd still have their headlights/tail lights shining prominently (and you'd probably have the added downside of higher noise due to high ISO and/or the foreground out of focus due to small depth of field with a wider aperture). At least a long exposure gives the feeling of flow around the monument. But I do agree, it's slightly too bright for my tastes. It seems basically 'correctly exposed' in terms of the luminosity curve, but sometimes scenes need to be brighter or darker to give the right ambiance, and I think this is an example of that. Just my opinion though. :) &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  13:07, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Support I am not a professional photographer, but I can say that as a layperson with an eye for artistic detail and a sense of composition, this picture looks very good to me! If it meets all other technical criteria (properly licensed, image size, etc.) I see no reason aesthetically why it should not become a featured picture.  The overexposure in the bottom left (if "over" is the right word) does not detract from its quality at all, for me.  I think it's a great shot.   KDS 4444   Talk  12:35, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Very good quality and very good EV. Blown highlights in the lights are to be expected of long, single-exposure night photography. The head/tail light trails make the image very dynamic. -- WingtipvorteX  PTT   ∅  19:03, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Long exposure is not only an artistic means to focus on static objects in a dynamic environment, it also allows poor-light images at low ISO levels/graininess. Here it is a perfectly apt choice and very well executed. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 13:54, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. Nicely done. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  15:25, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support per above. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:00, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support as above. J Milburn (talk) 23:52, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

--Armbrust The Homunculus 15:56, 6 August 2013 (UTC)