Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Sossusvlei desert in Namibia afrika.jpg

Image:Sossusvlei desert in Namibia afrika.jpg

Sossusvlei desert, Namibia Sossusvlei desert, rotated 2°CCW Sossusvlei desert, rotated, but without loss of sharpness

Original version - not featured

•  Info created by Martin van Triest - uploaded by Petrusbarbygere - nominated by Leyo --Leyo 21:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --Leyo 21:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
•  Support A striking image, perhaps overdone in Photoshop, but no doubt deliberately made to resemble a painting. I like it. --MichaelMaggs 22:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
• Now supporting edited version --MichaelMaggs 22:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
•  Support some digital Velvia is OK --Ikiwaner 22:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
•  Support fantastic norro 23:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --Luc Viatour 06:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Great photo &&  Comment It would be nice if you uploaded it in more than 2 MP. --Atoma 07:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  •  Info Please check the license of this photo, doesn.t seem right. - Alvesgaspar 08:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose License is not ok. DO NOT SHARE THE IMAGE WITH OTHERS! -- Simonizer 08:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  •  Info I'm afraid I don't agree with Simoniser.. The wording you have quoted is from the standard web-site licence terms, which presumably you found by clicking on the 'view image license' link below the photo on http://www.sxc.hu/browse.phtml?f=view&id=270109. But these terms explicitly say the "All Images on the Website are copyrighted and they are the properties of SXC or its Image providers." (my emphasis). In this case, copyright lies with the photographer, Martin van Triest, not the owners of the website to which the image has been uploaded. And the photographer has explictly stated that "There are no usage restrictions for this photo": in other words, that he has released it into the public domain. The quoted words simply do not apply. --MichaelMaggs 10:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  •  Info OK, on reconsideration, maybe things aren't necessarily as clear as I suggested above. One possible interpretation is that the words "There are no usage restrictions for this photo" should be read as a statement by the photographer that he is reserving no additional rights over and above what is stated by the standard web-site licence. To be on the safe side, the photographer should be contacted to indicate his intentions. I haven't done that as it requires registration on the SXC site. --MichaelMaggs 11:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I didn't question the freedom of use of this image but only the terms of the licence: "I, the author of this work, hereby release it into the public domain. This applies worldwide". Since the image was not uploaded by its author (who probably doesn't even know), the text seems inappropriate. - Alvesgaspar 12:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Ziga 14:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
•  Neutral - nice pic, but it looks tilted; would be better if rotated 2° or 3° CCW - MPF 14:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
•  Support An image that deserves FP status. Freedom to share 16:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
•  Support it reminds me of a scene in the movie "The Cell" ...great photo --AngMoKio 20:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --medium69 22:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

 7 support, 1 neutral >> not featured (see other version below) Alvesgaspar 10:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Rotated edit - featured

 Info Rotated 2°CCW to make the foreground plain level - MPF 10:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

•  Support - MPF 10:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
•  Support both versions --Atoma 17:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
•  Support--AngMoKio 19:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --MichaelMaggs 21:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --Digon3 02:32, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
•  Support both versions -- Lycaon 09:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
•  Comment The thumbnail lost lots of sharpness. What happened? norro 16:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

•  Comment Sorry, no idea. All I did was rotate, crop to remove the white edge triangles so created, and save. - MPF 22:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
•  Comment It's not only the thumbnail that has lost sharpness. Also the full size image seems less sharp to me. Maybe the 2°CCW rotation should be done with another program. --Leyo 18:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

•  Support Changed to the edited version. --Leyo 16:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
•  Support - Ceridwen 18:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Tatooine, here we come! Freedom to share 21:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC) (By the way, this joke refers to Star Wars in case you did not get it. It was meant as a compliment that he produced something as wonderful as we usually only see in high-budget productions :-) )
•  Oppose and delete. The image is from an unacceptable source, it's also tagged incorrectly (with a -self tag when the uploader was not the copyright holder). SXC claims that their license applies to all images, just as Wikipedia claims that all text is available under the GFDL. It only takes a moment to visit their message base and see that many of their contributors expect the images will be used only in accordance to the license agreement there. --Gmaxwell 17:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

 8 support, 1 oppose >> featured Alvesgaspar 10:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Rotated edit (sharp) - not featured

 Info Rotated, but this time without a loss of sharpness. Colors slightly enhanced. --Leyo 12:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

•  Oppose The sharpness is good but the oversaturated colours now spoil the effect, for me. --MichaelMaggs 18:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
•  Support I like this version, it looks more surreal. --Atoma 00:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

 1 support, 1 oppose >> not featured (see other version above) Alvesgaspar 10:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)