Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Lighthouse

Lighthouse

HDR image of lighthouse

A Turkish lighthouse, captured by Flickr user 'borabora'. Truly striking, in both the composition and lighting. The preceding unsigned image was nominated by User:Axpd - LE ✆N 04:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Unfortunately, this image fails the resolution requirements by a large margin, and is probably not significant or encyclopaedic enough to overcome this. There are prominent artifacts, and blown highlights. LE ✆N 04:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose size -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 04:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wow... I mean Oppose, that is some serious JPEG artifect...... --antilived ^{T | C | G} 05:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, quality of image is too poor. - Mailer Diablo 07:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Really pretty picture, but size too low, I cannot see the enc. HDR is fascinating and I toyed around with it too, but the technique alone should not be justification for an FP. --Dschwen 08:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Terrible image quality, lots of vignetting at the top and JPEG artifacting - could almost be used as the artifacts example on WIAFP. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very nice photo, but does not meet size or quality standards. I disagree that this is not encyclopedic enough, it certainly illustrates a lighthouse well. --Bridgecross 15:00, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per all above. I would like to see as many HDR photos has I do panoramic photos on this page. Provided the effect doesn't overwelm the subject.--Niro5 15:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for technical reasons mentioned above (size, compression).--Andrew c 16:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Oppose - massive artifacting, too small, vignetting. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξ φ 17:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. Too bad too, because it really is a nice photo. howch e ng {chat} 21:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per all above. Great picture, though. User:Sd31415/Sig 02:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Oppose. Great picture, but the size is too small and the quality is too bad. NauticaShad e s 09:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Although it's a great shame about the quality, no chance of a better quality version then? --Mcginnly | Natter 13:57, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, while I like the composition and atmosphere of this image, the image resolution simply isn't good enough. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:01, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Way too many jpeg artifacts. I would have hands-down supported had it been a high-resolution and clean picture. Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 23:20, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per above Krowe 12:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 17:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]