Comment I respect your opinion and agree that the light is better, but it has less detail, lower resolution and more perspective warp than the new photo.--Peulle (talk) 19:46, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Martinvl. We're judging these pictures as thumbnails, right? Please tell me we are, because if not, the rules of the game have been completely changed without any formal procedure to do so. This is the better picture, but the other one is much more clearly visible at thumbnail size. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:38, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ikan Kekek: We're (still) judging at the preview size visible at the nomination sub-page – nothing has changed there. That's what primarily matters per the VIC rules. But of course it might make sense to consider how it looks as a tiny thumbnail in an article on one of the sister projects. --El Grafo (talk) 13:26, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ikan Kekek and Peulle: My reading of this page suggests that the target size for judging an image for VI purposes is 360 x 480 pixels. The same page states that reviewers should also take int account the usefulness of the accompanying text. Martinvl (talk) 13:53, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked more closely at the rules and you're making good points: "The image must look good on-screen at the review size (e.g. 480x360 pixels for a standard 4:3 landscape image). Its usability in printed format is not considered.". This is a completely different set of criteria from what I'm used to at QIC, so I understand if you think the other image is better. It's clearly not of as high quality since it could never pass for a QI, but it has different lighting that makes it look good at lower resolutions.--Peulle (talk) 14:32, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
