Question Is there any reason why this image is more valuable for illustrating the subject than, say, Image:Trier, Porta Nigra cityside.jpg? I'm not trying to be facetious--I'm simply wondering if there's a particular reason why an image of the north side is more valuable than one of the south. --jonny-mt13:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First of all I didn't think to select a own valued image for each side. Perhaps you're right. But the north side is the side the romans build to impress the Germanic tribes so it's a kind of "main side" and more impressing. Most pictures in books and postcards show the north side. But as a "UNESCO World Heritage Site" the Porta Nigra may got a valued image for each side. --Berthold Werner (talk) 15:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Have you considered doing a series, then? I like this shot and agree that it's valuable, but since I'm having a hard time gauging its value relative to other similar pictures on Commons I'm Neutral for the time being. I'd certainly be willing to support a series showing various angles of this World Heritage Site, though. --jonny-mt15:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree with the nominator that this side of the structure is the most relevant, and I find the scope relevant as a stand-alone image. There are other photos on Commons taken from this side, but I think the lightning conditions on this candidate is better than on competing images and the crop is good. Other criteria check out for me too, so its a support from my side. Concerning a set nomination, I have my reservations unless it is taken as a series on the same day, at the same distance, such that it constitutes a coherent set. Difficult however, as the lightning conditions will never be good at all sides at the same time of day. -- Slaunger (talk) 15:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support IMHO an exemplary hi-res image, certainly a VI. Congrats: 44 images ... and, as yet, I haven't detected a single stitching error, even in the multitude of leaves at right. Which software do you use? Tremendous detail - every single chisel mark visible. Quite often hi-res images with low contrast do not readily appeal to the eye when rendered at lo-res, say a few hundred pixels each edge, but this image sports enough colour and contrast to please at any resolution. -- Franz van Duns (talk) 16:51, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Franz van Duns: Thank you! I use PTGui but I need several hours to eliminate stitching errors. That's why you don't see any stitching error in the picture. I don't think there is a software that stitches completely free of errors. Maybe you could also like the following pictures, which have an even higher sharpness: 612 megapixels & 348 megapixels ;-) Regards -- Wolf im Wald19:25, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Info There are many species with variable colour and/or pattern, see for example here, here, here, here, here (in the latter example not only the same species but the same population, collected in an area of a few square meters), and many more. --Llez (talk) 06:29, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
