Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bolivar-lighthouse-IMG 6934.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:Bolivar-lighthouse-IMG 6934.jpg[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 May 2020 at 02:12:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#United_States
Info created by Jim Evans - uploaded by Jim Evans - nominated by Jim Evans -- Jim Evans (talk) 02:12, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Support Jim Evans (talk) 02:29, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Question Hey Jim, is there a way you could upload a higher resolution version of this image? Please take a look at the requirements section of this page to learn more about minimum resolutions. Best, --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:31, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Comment This is my first submission, but looking on the requirements page the only resolution requirement I find is 2MP this image is 8MP. Please explain further. Jim Evans (talk) 03:11, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
- 2MP is the bare minimum, but most images at that resolution get voted down at FPC unless there's a good mitigating reason. Uploading a larger size will increase the change of success (but if you don't have a larger size, don't worry). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:16, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
- The request to provide the highest resolution possible is a general rule on Commons: Generally speaking, image quality and resolution should be as high as possible so images can be used in high-quality printouts, for example. MediaWiki, the server-side wiki software behind Wikimedia projects, can scale images in most formats on the fly as needed and storage space is not restricted, so concerns about download time and size should not keep you from uploading the highest resolution file available. [1] Of course, it’s your decision to downscale and/or crop your exposure as you like but small images will be frowned upon :) however it’s just a question, not a "must". --Kreuzschnabel 06:24, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Oppose Posterization all over the frame, making objects look "half transparent" (head of the lighthouse for instance). Much of noise and noise-reduction blur. While the scene is nice, it’s not that breathtaking to excuse for poor quality. --Kreuzschnabel 06:28, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
- Comment Have a look at File:Port_Bolivar_Lighthouse.jpg which appears to have been taken from 6 ft to the right of your position :) while that image is much older and not of excellent quality either, its detail is way better. --Kreuzschnabel 07:03, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose per Kreuzschnabel- --Fischer.H (talk) 09:21, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose How comes the white outline of a pelican on the completely black lighthouse? --Llez (talk) 10:03, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose Diagonal striations in the sky. Not close to one of the finest pictures on Commons. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:33, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose Horribly doctored image, false sky, artificial black. Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:03, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose Composition is really good, with the lighthouse and the other building placed at thirds, with the US flag blowing towards the camera, etc. Processing is definitely not good. It's logically impossible for a lighthouse to be so much in silhouette thaat it's completely black while the other building is lit perfectly, it makes no sense and jars you immediately when looking at the photo. It seems that the black of the lighthouse and of the birds have been done artificially (no silhouette was ever quite that black when captured in a natural exposure). There's also other weird things like the peculiar white outline of a ghost bird on the black lighthouse. Also per Frank higher resolution would be appreciated if you have it. Processed properly I think this scene could be QI or even FP, but as it is the alterations have IMO completely ruined the picture. Cmao20 (talk) 13:44, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination Jim Evans (talk) 13:37, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
