Wikimedia Commons

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Fort Point National Historic Site and Golden Gate Bridge.jpg

< Commons:Featured picture candidates

File:Fort Point National Historic Site and Golden Gate Bridge.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Oct 2009 at 03:09:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

 
Just for the record you did support that one with a lower resolution.--Mbz1 (talk) 10:56, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, but when I voted for that one last week I still felt bound by the guidelines, which basically say that everything above 2 Mpx is OK. But after the discussions and delisting nominations in the past days I realized that no one really cares about the guidelines. Instead, everyone applies their own personal standards. Because of that, I have decided that from now on, so will I. And I happen to believe that it should be possible to print a landscape photo to poster size without it looking blurry or pixelated, which is not possible with 2.6 Mpx. This is absolutely nothing personal, I love your work and even this candidate, but I will not support landscapes or panoramas anymore from now on I will oppose landscapes and panoramas unless they have at least 5 Mpx. -- JovanCormac 11:37, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know it is not personal :) , but I believe it is not excatly fair.The image you supported was taken with a better camera, than I used, which gives more room to play with the resolution. There's a difference between "not support" and "oppose". Anyway, if you decided to start your fight for the higher resolutions with my image, that's fine. Do not worry about that :)--Mbz1 (talk) 11:42, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, there's a difference. I really meant the latter, though. Corrected in my comment. -- JovanCormac 11:45, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I for one am very horrified to hear that Jovan. --Muhammad (talk) 13:23, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Someone has to start. 2 Mpx is a ridiculously low resolution for a landscape shot or panorama, when you cannot even buy a camera with less than 5 Mpx anymore. Commons is not (at least should not be) Wikipedia's image repository only. People will want to print out pictures, and 2 Mpx is sufficient for a top-quality postcard-sized print only. -- JovanCormac 13:53, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2000x1333 gives a good 27 inches wide picture at 72ppi. I think that's large enough for your wall :-) --Muhammad (talk) 15:13, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
72ppi is for web use. I print my photos at 300ppi, for print use, and I can say it is barely enough. Diti the penguin — 20:25, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Most newspapers and publishers print at 72 and slightly above. Only very high class magazines print at 300. FWIW, a normal user may not even be able to tell the differences between the two. --Muhammad (talk) 23:54, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are wrong, from my years of experience in the print industry (both in high print quality and newspaper), 300 dpi is industry standard. Actually newspapers use up to 600 dpi for plate printing. NO ONE (and I assure you I'm correct) prints newspaper plates at 72 dpi. — raeky (talk | edits) 18:26, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, “minimum resolution for magazine-quality printing is 300ppi”. Diti the penguin — 17:07, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jovan specifically talked about printing posters, which are usually printed at lower dpi simply because they are viewed from greater distances, 72 to 150dpi often seems to be the requirement on websites of poster printers. Some do specify 300dpi for everything, I trust they don't print billboard sized posters :-). Yes Jovan , we have guidelines, but vote as you see fit, that's the beauty of crowd wisdom, there is no need to rein in the extreme views. I still don't know why you don't start a project (eg QI was started when there was a need for images suitable for printing a calendar) to highlight glossy A4 magazine resolution images, it would be a valuable resource. It could be as simple as tagging high resolution FPs and QIs, to a full blown project with its own criteria. --Tony Wills (talk) 09:01, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for interest in my image and oppose vote from yet another user, who supported that nomination, the day light image with the same resolution. I do not consider opposes with that reason to be fair at all, I consider it to be biased, and that's why   I guess, if one wants to oppose an image, the reason could always be found --Mbz1 (talk) 16:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Jovan, I'd like to thank you for killing my nomination. I'd say you've changed your mind rather drasticly after you called Aqwis complain about resolution in 4 images panorama that you nominated "pure nonsense", and quoting you from the same post I'd say: "I try not to think too much about those "injustices", because if I do they always make me mad..." Nothing personal:)--Mbz1 (talk) 17:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support per my “personal guidelines”. Until some leniency sets up on how we should reasonably apply the guidelines. As the other opposers, you'll notice that my vote is not at all based on the picture, but by something called WP:POINT. ;) I'm not smarter than other people. Diti the penguin — 20:39, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Diti, you always could make me feel better :) I've decided to let the nominatation to proceed. :)--Mbz1 (talk) 20:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do love the bridge, but the nominated image is not just another night shot of the bridge. It has EV because it shows Fort Point and the bridge together.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:24, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 11 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Daniel78 (talk) 21:41, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Fort_Point_National_Historic_Site_and_Golden_Gate_Bridge.jpg&oldid=31014795"