Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Kanak house.jpg

Image:Kanak house.jpg, not featured

•  Info created by Inisheer - uploaded by Inisheer - nominated by Inisheer --inisheer 09:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Ludo 09:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
•  Neutral Natural looking image. Could be a little bit sharper and the shadow on the left side is disturbing. --Niabot 10:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose Shadow on the left, tilted, no wow-factor. A downsampling would help with sharpness. - Keta 10:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
•  Support the shadow on the left isn't a bad thing. Oblic blabla 13:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Lovely. Adam Cuerden 17:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose Tilted. I'm also not keen on the harsh lighting and shadows, nor on the way the tree cuts across one of the central pillars. --MichaelMaggs 18:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Mywood 11:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:Kanak house - modified.jpg, not featured

•  Info created, uploaded and nominated by Niabot
  rotated, shadows partialy removed, resized, some other small modifications
•  Support --Niabot 14:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
•  Support I prefer the colour saturation of the first version, but this one is sharper... It's a nice picture anyhow. -- MJJR 21:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
•  Comment thanks for rotating, but downsampling a picture to make it appear sharper on a monitor will loose details and make it unsuitable for quality prints. No picture suitable for a 300dpi print will appear sharp on a 72 or 96 dpi monitor, this is absolutely normal. I will provide a third version, keeping the original size and the colour profile that was stripped in your file when I have some time. inisheer 13:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

  If a pictures isn't sharp at high resolution, then it is no use to keep the file size. You can't add details with filters. If i would double the resolution, its still not sharper and lacks the same details. --Niabot 13:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

  I'm not talking about adding details, I'm talking about avoiding ruining them. You can reduce the definition of a picture by 2 or 3, add a lot of sharpening and it will look perfectly crisp on your monitor, but it will be unsuitable for a quality print. And Commons is also a repository for printing. inisheer 13:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

  Im aware of that. But if an image has the same quality as if you doubled the size first, then you will have no loss reducing it to 1/2. --Niabot 14:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

  For a camera of this sensor size and resolution, f/13 is excellent for maintaining resolution. If this were taken at f/22, downsampling would merely be removing information that didn't exist to begin with, but in this case I agree with inisheer. -- Ram-Man 22:08, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

•  Oppose. Quite very brigt colours. Канопус Киля 16:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
•  Support (with possible jump to Inisheer's version). Reality sometimes is brightly coloured. Adam Cuerden 17:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose I'm not keen on the harsh lighting and shadows, nor on the way the tree cuts across one of the central pillars. --MichaelMaggs 18:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood 11:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)