Info edited version by Sting : file name double extension fixed, sharpness enhanced.
Comment I've improved a bit the sharpness, even if it's not perfect (but increasing it brings too many artefacts) and even if it seems the original version had been already post-processed on the sharpness. Sting13:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SupportNeutral (after having made the Edit2 version) --Very nice photograph and view. The sharpness is not perfect but even so I think it's really good. I love it. Sting13:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great - good pov, nice shadows, i love the "natural" repetition of the houses. --Simonizer 14:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC) Changed my vote to the new version --Simonizer08:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice photograph. I'll never understand why people would want to live in a development like that, it's got no soul. Calibas16:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It is indeed a very good composition, but why is everyone ignoring the very low colour saturation and contrast? An edit to improve that would really provide the impact that this picture needs. I'll of course support a suitable edit. --MichaelMaggs18:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very low saturation? I believe this to be the 'real' colours of the houses. Likewise, contrast seems to correspond to the late afternoon or early morning that the shadows indicate. I really don't see the need of an edit here. --Nattfodd21:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't think sharpening the original version was needed, but it didn't spoil it. I also prefer the unsaturated version because what it striking in this picture is the "uniformity" of the houses, and to me, same must goes for the colours. It shows how sad are the buildings these days, that there's no space left for originality and so on. Also, there's nothing which tells us that saturating was more true to what it really looked like. -- Benh09:25, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Morning or late afternoon lightning brings warmer colours, hence more vivid even if the colours of the houses may be faded. I think the Edit2 version is closer to reality. Sting12:23, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Info 2nd edited version by Sting : saturation and contrast enhanced.
Comment Michael, I think you're right : I've made the first edit fast and the depressing suburb made me think these poor colours were the real ones. Sting21:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Horrible! It looks like a prison. An FP prison then ;-). (geocoding still required, though added it myself;-) Lycaon 11:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)) Lycaon23:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Slightly less saturated version uploaded (the workspace of my computer is less saturated than the web display). Sting12:14, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Every suburb I've been in has very neutral boring colors, while this edit makes the picture more aesthetically pleasing it's not accurate. The original version has a much more realistic color. Calibas18:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't believe the colours are true to the spirit of that picture (I pretty much agree with Calibas actually). Benh17:50, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Info created by IDuke - uploaded by Saoshyant - nominated by Jeses --Jeses 09:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Support Great composition --Jeses 09:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Oppose --Not really sharp, file name (double extension). See the edited version bellow. Sting 13:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment I've improved a bit the sharpness, even if it's not perfect (but increasing it brings too many artefacts) and even if it seems the original version had been already post-processed on the sharpness. Sting 13:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Neutral (after having made the Edit2 version) --Very nice photograph and view. The sharpness is not perfect but even so I think it's really good. I love it. Sting 13:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
