Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Iguazu Décembre 2007 - Panorama 8.2.JPG

Image:Iguazu Décembre 2007 - Panorama 8.2.JPG, not featured

•  Infocreated by S23678 - uploaded by S23678 - nominated by S23678 -- S23678 07:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  English: Image of the brasilian side of Iguazu Falls. Composed of multiple images stiched with Hugin.
  Français : Image des chutes d'Iguaçu. Composé de plusieurs photographies assemblées avec Hugin.
•  Support -- S23678 07:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Franko2nd 21:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose Plenty artefacts, very little detail. Lycaon 12:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose A good attempt, and it looks impressive in thumbnail. Unfortunately, at higher resolution there are large numbers of artefacts visible. --MichaelMaggs 13:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose Poor details. --Lerdsuwa 14:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose as Lerdsuwa • Rohan ^T 17:31, 8 June 2008
•  Comment Please consider the fact that the image is 4800 x 3500 pixels. You are judging it from it's quality (artifacts, details) when viewed at 100%. Pictures stitched with Hugin have artifacts from the manipulation (rotation, deformation of the original image). Have a look when I downsample this image to 2000x1500 px, (the same size than the previous and following candidates images), and you can clearly see that my image has the required levels of details and no artifacts. From the guidelines: "it is important that nominated pictures have as high a resolution as possible". If the artifacts and lack of details at 100% is the only reason why it fails FP nomination, if I upload a downsampled version of this image, would you change your vote? If yes, then we need to change the guidelines. -- S23678 18:33, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

To me pictures from Hugin don't have artifacts you are talking about. If you ask hugin to calculate the optimal size before final rendering, it should get you the size where you won't see artifacts. Benh 22:06, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Although your image size is 4800 x 3500 it doesn't have that much information in it. It is bigger than it really should be, not much different from stretching a small photo to big size. The artifact should disappear if the dimension is correct just like Benh said. --Lerdsuwa 03:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Lerdsuwa, look at this, and tell me if there is no information. The downsampled image is even larger than other pictures where you voted in support. My image has not been stretched, so downsampling my image is not like stretching a small image because there will be a loss of information. Images on common can be used by anyone, and they may be edited for other purposes by someone who needs the maximum resolution he can get. Downsampling my image only for it to be a FP is not the way to go. If you don't like my image, that's fine, you can vote against it. But if it's because I have a too big resolution, it simply goes against the guidelines everyone is supposed to follow, and your vote should not be valid. -- S23678 04:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

•  Comment S23768 before you post anything on wikipedia or commons you should probably make sure it is razor sharp. There have been hundreds of photos rejected from featured status from not having details at very large sizes. I am currently shooting on an 400d with the 18-55mm lens and it is by no means sharp at full res. I usually downsize the picture to the limit where it finally is sharp. Just take this in mind next time you're posting a picture.  Support nicely done. -- victorrocha 00:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose, inferior shot given the subject at hand, fails to capture the beauty of Iguaçu. Shereth 17:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Neutral —αἰτίας •discussion• 01:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Wow!--Mbz1 (talk) 04:19, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

result: 4 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 13:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)