Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Shutter speed in Greenwich.jpg
Great photo, see also Exposure (photography)
- Nominate and support. - PopUpPirate 01:17, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support. Most illustrative. Raven4x4x 09:09, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. I'd prefer to see a series going from extreme under- to extreme over-exposure. And the subject should have a high range of brightnesses revealing different details with every exposure level. --Dschwen 17:54, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. Agree with above. Mikeo 21:55, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose in agreement with Dschwen. I may take that challenge at some point if a scene inspires me. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 23:56, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose - while it's informative, I don't find it stunning. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:18, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. Ack Dschwen. --Janke | Talk 07:29, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Agree with Fcelloguy Calderwood 13:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose - Sorry, I don't find it really all that great. KILO-LIMA 13:58, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. Agree with above. Alr 22:41, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
- Support Illustrates its point well, and I think it's kinda cool.--Lewk_of_Serthic 02:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose - I'm actually the person who took the pictures, and even I don't think it's "stunning" enough to be a FP (though I do think it illustrates the point very well). If I did, I would have nominated it myself :) --Aramգուտանգ 03:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose per photographer. Informative, but not sufficiently stunning. - Mgm|(talk) 09:57, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. If the photographer doesn't think it is good... well, what to say. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 06:37, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose I cannot find any positiv on it. Andrew18 @ 09:31, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Not promoted Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 02:22, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
