Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Cathedral of Brescia.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:Cathedral of Brescia.jpg, not featured[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Apr 2012 at 22:58:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info created by Moroder - uploaded by Moroder - nominated by Moroder -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 22:58, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Support -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 22:58, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Neutral-- The composition in global aspect is ok. But 100% is blurry to me (reducing the definition could also help), and I perceive some distorsion in several aeras though it does not affect the principal subjects.--Telemaque MySon (talk) 09:14, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
- Why would downsampling make it any better ? You'd just lose information. --Claritas (talk) 16:42, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
- This image resolution is definitly too high; you do not necersaly loose information depending on what is your purpose. If you want to see blurry people at 100% with some distortion, I do not see the point. The picture aims at architectural features; resolution is good if definition follow. Actually resolution is not definition in this picture.--Telemaque MySon (talk) 17:13, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- Dear Telemaque! Thanks for reviewing my picture. Sincerely I don't catch your point. Wikimedia needs to have pictures in the highest resolution possible, since it is considered to be a repository for pictures for any use. Wikimedia itself allows you to download pictures at different resolutions according to your needs up to a size of 100MB. The issue of the picture is not so much people but the architectural details and i don't think it is correct to say that you do not have sufficient definition of those structures (i.e. capitals, columns etc. Btw, resolution describes the ability of an imaging system to resolve detail. Anyhow it's good to have a constructive discussion --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 21:22, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- This image resolution is definitly too high; you do not necersaly loose information depending on what is your purpose. If you want to see blurry people at 100% with some distortion, I do not see the point. The picture aims at architectural features; resolution is good if definition follow. Actually resolution is not definition in this picture.--Telemaque MySon (talk) 17:13, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- Why would downsampling make it any better ? You'd just lose information. --Claritas (talk) 16:42, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
OpposeI miss a part of the whole building (old cathedral) complex at right. I think the crop is a bit tight here. Maybe a little rotation when taking the picture should have been better, as we have space enough at left, sorry.--Jebulon (talk) 08:49, 24 April 2012 (UTC)- Unfortunately on the right side stood a huge parked SUV ;-) --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 09:13, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
- Support - good enough for me, although Jebulon's criticism is fair. --Claritas (talk) 16:42, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
- Support -- per above. Jkadavoor (talk) 07:41, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 19:10, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
