Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Anthurium scherzerianum 2.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Image:Anthurium scherzerianum 2.jpg, not featured[edit]
Voting period ends on 5 Nov 2008 at 11:12:53
Info created by Noodle snacks - uploaded by Noodle snacks - nominated by Noodle snacks -- Noodle snacks (talk) 11:12, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Support -- Noodle snacks (talk) 11:12, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Question The colours, DOF, composition and quality are on spot, but is this downsampled? –Dilaudid 15:33, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I wish to retain the ability to sell higher resolution copies for a small fee. Noodle snacks (talk) 22:07, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Downsampling. –Dilaudid 15:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- That really is not a valid reason to oppose ; size is above requirements. Many many people downsample their pictures here, and don't get opposed for that. Benh (talk) 22:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- In that case the guidelines should be rephrased, they currently say "it is important that nominated pictures have as high a resolution as possible" and to me that sounds as downsampling actually is a valid reason to oppose. /Daniel78 (talk) 23:33, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- Its time the guidelines be changed then. Muhammad 11:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- I think the guidelines should say something about downsampling, otherwise this discussion will arise again and again./Daniel78 (talk) 19:19, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Comment You might not get money for putting your pictures on Wikipedia, but you will get a whole lot of free publicity everyday. Millions of people use Wikipedia on a daily basis and see your work. Further more, every large editor who will be interested in your pictures wants a Tif-version of the photo. Since all files are jpg, large editors will probably not use them (correct me if I'm wrong here). I also sell my pictures and still make enough money with them. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 16:32, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- I think the guidelines should say something about downsampling, otherwise this discussion will arise again and again./Daniel78 (talk) 19:19, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- Its time the guidelines be changed then. Muhammad 11:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- In that case the guidelines should be rephrased, they currently say "it is important that nominated pictures have as high a resolution as possible" and to me that sounds as downsampling actually is a valid reason to oppose. /Daniel78 (talk) 23:33, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- That really is not a valid reason to oppose ; size is above requirements. Many many people downsample their pictures here, and don't get opposed for that. Benh (talk) 22:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I wish to retain the ability to sell higher resolution copies for a small fee. Noodle snacks (talk) 22:07, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Twdragon (talk) 10:50, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support great image, above the 2mp requirement Muhammad 11:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Downsampling. –- Lycaon (talk) 19:40, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- Comment We really have got to rephrase that part of the guidelines about the size. To me the opposes aren't justified here because the picture is > 2mpix. No matter what hardware was used, the result is good. Had this picture been taken with a 2mpix camera, no one would have opposes. And if it's the best Commons can offer on the subject, why would we reject it ? I suggest Noodle Snack to buy a 2 mpix camera, to take the same pictures with it, and renominate them here to avoid these sorts of votes. Benh (talk) 22:29, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Downsampling ! I have no absolute religion against downsampling, but if you put a featurable downsampled version on Commons and keep another not downsampled version for selling, then you will get big confusion about published pictures. As featured images are to be widely scattered, we must do it very clear. Author rights apply to the work, not to the pixels. That's my opinion. --B.navez (talk) 03:33, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
- Your opinion is irrelevant as far as the law is concerned. There is a huge list of current downsampled featured pictures, oppositions based on downsampling are a case of bias more than anything else. Take a look at the top 10 photographs for the Commons Picture of the Year last year. Only one was clearly not downsampled, and one may have been a crop or a downsample. The remainder were clearly downsampled. Voting fairly against downsampling in all cases would knock out a majority of the best images on commons (including all of fir0002's contributions and I believe a majority of Diliff's). Noodle snacks (talk) 05:02, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
- Maybe another way to look at "downsampling" opposes is that since 35 mm film can capture at ~10 MPix ( a guess for sure, but current digital cameras can) then a downsampled version, say ~2 Mpix, can easily be remade with better quality.--Commander Keane (talk) 06:46, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
- Your opinion is irrelevant as far as the law is concerned. There is a huge list of current downsampled featured pictures, oppositions based on downsampling are a case of bias more than anything else. Take a look at the top 10 photographs for the Commons Picture of the Year last year. Only one was clearly not downsampled, and one may have been a crop or a downsample. The remainder were clearly downsampled. Voting fairly against downsampling in all cases would knock out a majority of the best images on commons (including all of fir0002's contributions and I believe a majority of Diliff's). Noodle snacks (talk) 05:02, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Perhaps we can take the downsampling issue at the discussion page instead of having separate discussions on every image that get such votes ? /Daniel78 (talk) 22:05, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support I'm not a fan of downsampling, because it often obscures details in a picture, but that is not the case with this one. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 01:02, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support Barabas (talk) 00:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Result: 5 Support, 3 Oppose --> not featured --Mr. Mario (talk) 04:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
