Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:95 - Machu Picchu - Juin 2009.jpg

File:95 - Machu Picchu - Juin 2009.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Apr 2010 at 15:24:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by S23678 - uploaded by S23678 - nominated by Patriot8790 -- патриот8790 (talk) 15:24, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- патриот8790 (talk) 15:24, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Some browsers can't even view it because it's so huge. If this were downsized I'd vote support. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 16:35, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, I gotta call bullshit on this. I don't even know where to begin with. First of all Mediawiki does the downscaling for you. Secondly: Zoomviewer. Demands like this are nothing but detrimental to the project. Just thank the uploader for providing non-downsampled version of his images. --Dschwen (talk) 22:40, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- I don't think very large size should prevent promotion if the quality is outstanding. Jonathunder (talk) 20:01, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support As Dschwen said, opposing because an image is of too high resolution/size/quality is bullshit. This is Featured-level work. Steven Walling 04:35, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nice panorama, but sky is overexposed on the left side --Simonizer (talk) 07:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (For Stephen Walling and Dschwen) Please, if you may, don't use this kind of expressions. Thank you, --патриот8790 (talk) 08:08, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ghosts. —kallerna™ 10:41, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Where? Could you use image annotation to point them out, please. --Dschwen (talk) 15:53, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support This picture is outstanding. The lighting effects symbolize the magic of this historical place --Hemm, 14:54, 1 April 2010 (CEST)
Support, this image is really excellent. --Vprisivko (talk) 15:50, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I like the image size, and it has wow. However, the stitch isn't quite good. There are many obvious ghosts. --Lošmi (talk) 17:18, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I don't think this is one of hist best images, some stitching problems will have to be fixed. And I'm not too fond of the exposure problems in the sky. --Dschwen (talk) 17:39, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I saw much better photos of S23678 than this. I think there stitching problems, quality's not the best and it gives overexposed parts --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 19:39, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Dschwen. --Avenue (talk) 20:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Some minor flaws indeed, but this image is certainly FP worthy. -- MJJR (talk) 21:03, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Dschwen. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:40, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose My old tripod induced quite a parallax error when taking pictures in portait shape, which explains some of the ghosts (as seen on a previous nomination take in the same location). This image falls short of what should be expected quality-wise from FPs. Thanks for all your comments. --S23678 (talk) 15:43, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Per creator's comments. Thank you, --патриот8790 (talk) 15:46, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]