Comment The sky shows horrible artefacts throughout all images in that series. I see you converted the camera's DNG into tiff – if that was a straight conversion, it probably doesn't include a de-mosaicing step? That would mean it's basically still an undeveloped RAW file, which could be useful if someone wants to do some work on it but not really useful in terms of using it in an article (which is what VIC is about). --El Grafo (talk) 10:12, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Even so the camera uses DNG, it has only a 24-bit-sensor, the conversion to tiff is 1-to-1. The camera also saves jpg, but it is still the same picture from the same sensor. The Golden Gate is part of the Herrenhausen Gardens. You need to pay for a ticket, to see it. FOP does probably not apply, but the Gardens gave me a permit to take photos and publish under cc-by-sa-4.0. There are other pictures of this and other parts of the Gardens and people in Wikipedia believe, that a permit by the gardens is not really needed, but I am no lawyer. I will not do any work with graphics software on this pictures, but of course anyone can do that and then submit another version of the file. --C.Suthorn (talk) 07:48, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't know what camera you were using, but normally it works like this: A jpg exported from a camera comes from the same sensor, but it is not really the same picture as a DNG, as the DNG is a RAW file and the jpg went trough the camera's internal processing software. Think of the DNG as a frame on a strip of developed negative film and of the jpg as the final positive print. One important part of that processing is en:Demosaicing, which is necessary for basically all kinds of current imaging sensors (apart from Foveon): this is done by the camera when you choose jpg as the output format, but needs to be done by external software (like Adobe Lightroom/Camera Raw/Photoshop, rawtherapee, darktable, etc.) if you want to turn a raw DNG file into a final image. I suspect that during the 1:1 conversion from DNG to tiff the demosaicing step was either not done or not done correctly, leading to those very strange color patterns in the clouds (zoom in to 100% to have a look). These patterns occur in all of the tif files of yours that I've checked so far, usually most notable in highlight areas. This leads me to believe that there must be some kind of systematic error somewhere in the queue between image capturing in the camera and upload at Commons. If you've still got the original DNG files, it might be worth a try to load one of them into a free raw processor like RawTherapee, export them to jpg (or tif, if you prefer) with default settings and examine the results. If the patterns are still there afterwards, your camera might be malfunctioning.
Anyway: I won't support an image with this kind of artefacts. But if someone else would like to argue that they are not visible at the default review size and thus don't matter at VIC, I won't stand in the way. Cheers, --El Grafo (talk) 08:54, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is not helpful to other users to submit tif images, they take too long to load. Also, I think we can expect better quality image for this type of VI. Charles (talk) 14:47, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
wikipedia's server software does not deliver the uploaded file to the web browser, but a transcoded (scaled down) version. Hover your mouse over a tif-picture, click right, select "save file as" and look at the file name. It is "...tif.jpg", because you get a jpg. If you think the download takes to long, you can ask the server admins to change the settings of imagemagick, so that smaller versions of pictures are generated on the fly. --C.Suthorn (talk) 16:08, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose You must be joking. Just upload JPGs like everyone else. And whatever the format, this is just a poor quality image. Charles (talk) 19:30, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So now you voted. That's ok. It is not ok that you tried to trick others to vote in your mind by telling an alternative fact about the download file size. I nomintated this file not because of the image quality, but because of the permit by the gardens. If you are sure, that this is not needed, then go on nominate an other picture of the gate. There are others on commons. I only have this tif-files (and by now another camera). --C.Suthorn (talk) 10:34, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
