Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Machu Picchu Sunrise

Machu Picchu Sunrise edit

Original - Sunrise in Machu Picchu, Peru

Reason: Seems like a decent candidate.
Articles this image appears in: Machu Picchu; Peru and others.
Creator: Allard Schmidt (The Netherlands)

Support as nominator Camptown (talk) 23:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This picture by the same author is labeled as a sunset, yet the shadows are pointing in the same directions... --Dschwen 00:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Same author description on both images says it was sunrise. I believe second image is just mislabeled, ~~shots look like they were taken very close in time.~~ Look at the EXIF data, shots from same camera 2 minutes apart. vlad§inger ^tlk 02:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - this image is far too low a resolution and shows heavy JPEG compression. vlad§inger ^tlk 02:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The resolution's fine at 2,048 × 1,536 pixels. Well above the size guidelines. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξ φ 15:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant oppose - blown sky. I suppose a request for reshooting is wishful thinking? Durova^Charge! 02:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose. I must admit, a better picture can be retaken. Dengero (talk) 05:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - noisy, unsharp, completely blown sky. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξ φ 15:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The "grainy" look I see when I click on the thumbnail is not acceptable in an FP - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 16:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose picture with wow effect, but - unfortunately - in low resolution. Galileo01 (talk) 16:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support This is a pretty good picture and I think the resolution is sufficient, but it does have a grainy look at full resolution. 66.56.128.43 (talk) 18:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Beautiful subject, but noisy and the entirely white sky is distracting. --Extr3me (talk) 18:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, per above, potentially beautiful, but the blown sky damns the picture.D-rew (talk) 00:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose Again, a very nice photo, but grainy in a few sections. Juliancolton (Talk) 13:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 03:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]