Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Larus pacificus Bruny Island.jpg

File:Larus pacificus Bruny Island.jpg, not featured

Voting period ends on 1 Feb 2009 at 17:43:22

•  Info created and uploaded by Noodle snacks - nominated by Muhammad Mahdi Karim -- Muhammad 17:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Muhammad 17:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, image is below size limit and overly cropped Lycaon (talk) 18:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment Still an impressive bird and a very good quality shot, shame about the unwillingness to submit large sized images. Lycaon (talk) 18:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support For me, a 4 KB difference (1,169 × 1,707 = 1,995,483) from the minimal image size requirement should not lead to a {{FPX}}. This is a technically awesome photo. →Diti the penguin — 20:33, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Neutral Well, awesome is a very elastic term :-)) It's good but I dont like the tight crop on the left side --Richard Bartz (talk) 22:05, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Sorry, but there is no technical reason why this image should be below the 2Mpx limit. The small image size is purely the decision of the uploader, and FPC voters have long looked with disfavour at images that are artificially small merely because the uploader has decided to hold the higher-resolution version back. It is important, in my view, that we encourage users to upload at high resolution, and we can do that by supporting the 2Mpx limit. I would support this if a higher-resolution version were to be uploaded. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:58, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

A technical reason might be to increase the sharpness. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 23:25, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's a retarded reason. The sharpness isn't actually increased, it's just harder to see the blur because it's smaller. Information is lost. Plrk (talk) 12:53, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I was aware of that, but it could still be a reason. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 00:04, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

•  Comment Keeping bigger resolutions for oneself is a choice, and voting against a picture for that reason makes me think that people vote for Commons and not for the picture itself. It's not by absolutely wanting a high resolution version that you will appeal uploaders, you know. See what it lead to for File:Bébé Phoque de Weddell - Baby Weddell Seal.jpg: people were like “you don't have control on your high-res version any more, sorry” (while upload was a honest mistake), and I'm now sure that Ehquionest (talk · contribs) will never want to upload again. But yes, I see your point. →Diti the penguin — 17:43, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

That's probably the reason for not uploading the full resolution version of the file. In some way I do understand him for not uploading it, since I'm heading in the same direction more and more. Wikipedia's articles can be well illustrated with a photograph <2mpx and Wikipedia is becoming a free haven for companies, who can now obtain and use good pictures for free. I'm not against school children using them for projects at school, but large companies... As an example: Take a look at the website of the Top of the Rock observation platform in NYC (Rockefeller Center). The intro (so don't skip it) uses a panorama taken by user Dschwen and they probably didn't pay a dime (This one is uploaded under GNU, so he probably doesn't mind, but that's besides the point.). If you want to encourage photographers to upload larger files, you will have to do better then dismissing the pictures from becoming FP's. There is currently no license available on Wikipedia, which doesn't permit the use of files outside of Wikipedia's projects.--Massimo Catarinella (talk) 00:04, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

The the reason for there being no license under which an image can be restricted is because we are a free repository that is the whole purpose of Commons and the reason for Wikipedia and all he other Wikimedia projects. I sure Dschwen has many photos that have been used else where, I have had a few used even Britannica uses one of my images. Ultimately we make a choice as to how much and what we choose to upload, if that choice means that the image doesnt meet the communities criteria for FP then thats a choice the uploader makes. FP is about being our best work and small images have a harder time convincing the community they are our best work. Gnangarra 10:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd probably upload at full size if commons had a non-commercial licence. Opposes based on downsampling at COM:FPC don't motivate me. Downsampling can increase the apparent sharpness of an image, in my case though it isn't needed, I am using high quality equipment and (usually) good technique. BTW, The slight crop only needs to be changed by four pixels to meet the 2mpix requirement. Noodle snacks (talk) 10:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

To the best of my understanding, Creative Commons licenses do not include a resolution restriction where below a certain resolution the license applies but above the resolution it doesn't. I witnessed a pre-Creative Commons era real life situation where an image that did not exceed 300px and was watermarked with the photographers name was used to make a print that was 20 inches X 16 inches as that was what was available to the interested eh, print maker. I just don't think that your need to control how the image is managed can be obtained by resolution restrictions that you are using here and perhaps you should only show the image at the non-commercial show places that live up to your restriction requirements. A lot of people take nice photographs, those interested in reviews and acceptance need to consider who their audience is. -- carol (talk) 02:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

•  Support -- Avjoska (talk) 10:44, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose per MichaelMaggs. Plrk (talk) 12:53, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Lycaon. —kallerna™ 13:18, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose The small size isn't really FP quality. However, it is perfectly acceptable for an author to upload at whatever size they want, to be used for other purposes of Commons. JalalV (talk) 23:37, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose size is an issue the composition is too cramped for my liking. Gnangarra 10:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support I don't mind the crop. I only oppose down sampled images, if they lack in detail through it. That isn't the case here. And I'm not going to give you a hard time for coming 4 KB short on image size. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 12:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose The bird is very well focused and the image has good detail but the crop is too tight near the tail, and too low with the unfocused ground. Mitigating reason for downscaling below the limit such a tight crop picture of a still bird? --Javier ME (talk) 21:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

result: 4 support, 7 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. D-Kuru (talk) 21:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)