Weak Support Almost looks computerised - certainly does in the thumbnail. Seems a bit soft when viewed at full size, and a few of the cars in the foreground have streaks of light in front of them which much have come from other cars that did not make the edit... but there's something about the colours that really attract me to it... Gazhiley (talk) 19:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the "computerised" look is the result of high ISO noise reduction. Noodle snacks (talk) 05:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The moon looks like it's been dubbed in for two main reasons: size and exposure. Unless this was shot with a 300mm lens (unlikely for a streetscape - I'd say this was shot at no more than 100mm) then the moon should be much much smaller. Next as far as I can tell the moon should really be blown out to get the required exposure of the street scene. Instead it's perfectly exposed (verging on slightly underexposed). Now I'm not 100% sure on this but it does look a bit suspicious --Fir0002 06:46, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely agree with you. One thing you didn't mention is how much sharper the moon is than the rest of the scene. Unless the photographer used a wide aperture and focused on the moon instead of the cityscape, I can't see how it isn't fake. Also, the shadow side of the moon doesn't look perfectly smooth as it should. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 07:00, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose due to fakery of the moon. Also, I don't know how easy it is to get a better shot, but the composition is a little messy. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 07:00, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nice pic aesthetically, but clear digital alterations like the moon are a problem. --Leivick (talk) 08:11, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw I thought the picture looked great and loved the way the moon turned out, but after Fir's and Dliff's comments, I withdraw. Muhammad(talk) 11:20, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
