File talk:New York City at night HDR.jpg

 

The retouched version

So... Who created it? Why should we replace the #2 Picture of the Year 2007 with it without re-evaluating if it still deserves the title? Jan Hofmann 06:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

It is an image, and it can easily be decided which one is better. Tell me how exactly you think the edited version worsens the image. If you don't, then this "we should make a review" is only a waste of time. Tell me what you think is worse at the edited version, but be clear and exact, and if you can't point out anything, then it probably means this is a waste of time.:-)
As for who is the author, I can't remember. The former image was deleted (not by me, I don't have the right), and the reson was "Dupe of [this image]".[1]
BTW, I'm telling you this the friendly way: you should change your attitude. You're here for only a month or two, and you alredy start bossing around (I see I'm not the only one you've bumped in to). diego_pmc 19:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it should be edited either. A number of people looked at it and decided it was good enough to be a featured picture. It was further looked at by all the picture of the year voters, who chose it to be the #2 image in the set. We don't know why they all chose it: it may have been some wonky line that made it look good to them, uneven tilt, or perspective distortion, or whatever. It wouldn't be the featured picture that was promoted, or the #2 commons picture of 2007 anymore if we went and edited it. For the same reason, modified versions of featured pictures can't have the featured tags on them without being put through the same review process the original went through. You can of course upload another version of the image with another name and replace the uses that are for something else than its artistic merit, but this one here shouldn't be replaced. --Para 19:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Published

This file has been used in: Bil Preston. My First Threesome. PUA Forum.