Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Bangkok skytrain sunset.jpg

Bangkok Sunset

Good representation of life in a busy city. Brilliant colors, good composition. I'm surprised this isn't already a featured picture.

Nominate and support. - Alr 20:14, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This is a fantastic picture with obvious relevance to the topic. 24.210.183.29 23:52, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately, anonymous editors cannot vote. Please register. Enochlau 13:41, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support, beautiful. Raven4x4x 08:42, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Amazing. Looks very warm, inviting colours. Vanderdecken ^℘ζξ 10:59, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly oppose. The lights are overexposed and blurry, and the large motion-blurred train distracting. —Cryptic (talk) 18:10, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. For the same reasons that Cryptic opposes :) - Haukur Þorgeirsson 19:09, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support - It's absolutely lovely, but I'm not sure which article it would readily add something to that couldn't be better illustrated in a more mundane way. It wouldn't illustrate the article on that train very well. The tall buildings - are they all in an area we have an article on, eg Bangkok financial district or something? --bodnotbod 07:03, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Good points there. It does show the way the trains are elevated along the middle of the roads in Bankok though. I don't think it should necessarily be featured purely because it is pretty, but because it provides a good view of the financial district and a view of the train system that operates in the area at a particularly vivid time of day. Thats just my opinion. Diliff 03:41, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I added it to "golden hour (photography)" which I think it illustrates masterfully.--Deglr6328 08:16, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The warm glow is inviting to a picture of a city better known for pollution. Enochlau 07:05, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Dilff, you're ruining us all from objectively judging all the other slightly less than mindblowing images here! :oD I would love to see higher resolution though....--Deglr6328 08:16, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Full support. Amazing colors, great balance of natural and artificial lighting. I really like the motion blur, makes it even more vivid and dynamic. --Dschwen 12:15, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support as per Haukur Þorgeirsson :). --Bash 22:28, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Gmaxwell 05:33, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support - It's very nice. But the article that it'll describe will be tricky to place. - RPharazon 03:54, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Beautiful. The Singing Badger 16:22, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I usually dislike artificially warm skies but it works here. Rhobite 01:01, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, it isn't artificially warm. That is pretty much as I saw it - an amazing sunset. I could show you a photo taken towards the sunset, rather than away from it, but it isn't particularly encyclopaedic, just pretty. Then again, we DO have a sunset article Diliff 03:41, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - You didn't play with the white balance at all (not that there's anything wrong with that)? Wow! Rhobite 05:10, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, no adjustments to the white balance at all. This is the photo I took facing the opposite direction to this (at approximately the same time, anyway. The sunset went through various phases starting with the amazing golden colour, to dark orange/red to red/purple over the course of about 15 minutes). You can see the photo I was referring to here [[1]]. I will admit that in this second photo, I brought the shadows out quite a lot as the foreground was originally quite dark, but the sky was left largely as-is. Diliff 15:19, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Borisblue 05:00, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support, nice panorama. Halibu tt 23:42, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Bangkok skytrain sunset.jpg Raven4x4x 04:26, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]