Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:London Thames Sunset panorama - Feb 2008.jpg

Image:London Thames Sunset panorama - Feb 2008.jpg, featured edit

Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Massimo Catarinella -- Massimo Catarinella (talk) 13:13, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Massimo Catarinella (talk) 13:13, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, great colours and composition. --Aqwis (talk) 15:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is already a featured picture. Regards, CycloneNimrod ^talk?_contribs? 16:28, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But at the en:WP, not on Commons -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, Support Regards, CycloneNimrod ^talk?_contribs? 17:28, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Sensl (talk) 17:29, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's a pity it's so small... -- Sanchezn (talk) 17:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support I would have nominated it, if it were not for the size.. but still a great shot. Benh (talk) 17:38, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support | Great shot. - TheWB (talk) 18:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question Has this been downsampled? Why not provide a higher resolution version? –Dilaudid 18:53, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 20:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support... but same question as Sanchezn and others: why so small? -- MJJR (talk) 20:29, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think because there is not a good license for pictures on Wikipedia, if you also sell your pictures. This is the same reason I withhold on uploading most of my great ones. Diliff maybe chooses to reduce the resolution of his images. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 21:04, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I thought it was already featured but apparently what I saw was the tag for FP on en wiki.--Avala (talk) 22:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Downsampling. That excuse is ridiculous, I sell my pictures regardless and I don't keep larger version behind for commercial purposes. FP asks for largest available format. Lycaon (talk) 22:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, is it what are you doing here lycaon selling your pictures? I do not think it is the right place to sell your pictures --Sensl (talk) 00:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think that that maybe the reason, but that does not mean I am for sure. It is not my picture by the way. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 23:06, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support JukoFF (talk) 00:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jennavecia ^(Talk) 04:05, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Bien --Reflection of Perfection (talk) 04:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:14, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Durova (talk) 06:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Downsampling --Luc Viatour (talk) 07:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Downsampling. –Dilaudid 09:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fulfills size requirements, the rest is none of our business. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 14:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment See our guidelines for what is and what is not our business. –Dilaudid 21:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I can't oppose this very beautiful image, but I also can't support because of the dramatic downsampling from 60MPix to 2.3MPix. Chmehl (talk) 15:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support-- DarkAp89 Commons 21:14, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Better downsampled than not uploaded at all. --Calibas (talk) 03:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Awesome! --Aktron (talk) 15:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I do not want to encourage downsampling, much detail is lost. /Daniel78 (talk) 16:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As above. --Karelj (talk) 18:12, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support What is wrong about downsampling?! The picture how it is is great....who cares how big the pic was before?! --AngMoKio (talk) 11:30, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Because downsampling dramatically reduces the quality of the image, and the ways in which the image can be used. In full size this could be printed in large scale while in this size it cannot. In full size portions of the image could be used as high quality prints while now they cannot. The requirement for the largest possible size is stated in our image guidelines according to which the images should be evaluated. –Dilaudid 19:53, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reduces the quality of the picture? In what way? It has more than 2 mpx and that is all that counts. What if the picture wouldn't be a stiched picture but a normal picture of a digicam with just 2mpx - then it would be ok?! --AngMoKio (talk) 07:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't want to play the devil' advocate here, but the amount of mpx's is within wikipedia's guidelines. So legally there is nothing from with downsizing. Further more Wikipedia should not be a source for printing photographs. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 15:20, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - From the nomination guidelines: "They may be also used for printing or for viewing on very high resolution monitors. We can't predict what devices may be used in the future, so it is important that nominated pictures have as high a resolution as possible." /Daniel78 (talk) 17:24, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I didn't know that. Thank you for informing me. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 22:11, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That rule is ridiculous, and ridiculous rules should be ignored. For one, other than from the creator, how should we know a picture was downsampled? For two, that downsampling automatically reduces image quality is nonsense. Larger images also make artifacts more visible, so whenever a large scale picture reveals more artifacts than image details, downsampling is a very obvious tool to improve image quality. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 00:13, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Downsampling automatically reduces image quality is nonsense" --> Try this then: "Here is your 12oz steak sir, we felt it had a better appearance as a 4oz steak, be sure to thank us and tip us well as reducing the content (amount of stuff) does not affect the quality...." -- carol (talk) 05:30, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - If a rule is ridiculous it should not be ignored, it should be changed. /Daniel78 (talk) 09:48, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Loyna (talk) 19:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support If he wouldn't of mentioned it's downsampled you wouldn't know and it doesn't affect the picture you have now --SuperJew (talk) 14:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC) Out of date. --Tintero (talk) 17:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

result: 22 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. --Tintero (talk) 17:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]