Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:80 - Machu Picchu - Juin 2009 - edit.jpg

File:80 - Machu Picchu - Juin 2009 - edit.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Oct 2009 at 16:39:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:80 - Machu Picchu - Juin 2009 - edit.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:80 - Machu Picchu - Juin 2009 - edit.jpg

•  Info Second try for this image (first nomination). You may have better eyes than me, but I wasn't able to find the same kinds of defects than on my first nomination. Everything by me. --S23678 (talk) 16:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- S23678 (talk) 16:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment The stitching indeed is much better. I still think you should upload a downsampled version for two reasons. First: a picture of 76 MB is not easy to handle and second: the image is not very sharp in the full resolution so you wouldn't lose much information by moderate downsampling, but quite on the contrary get rid of unnecessary information. --NEURO ^⇌ 19:12, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
  • When I withdrew my first nomination, my intention was to make a downsampled version of this image, but Michael Gäbler's comments made me think otherwise (I invite you to go see his comments). As for the difficulty of handling such a big image, you can use the power of wikimedia to downsample any images. As for the lack of sharpness, as I said in the previous nomination, the type of projection used is actually up-sampling the outer parts of the image while downsampling the center portions. Per the guidelines : "We can't predict what devices may be used in the future, so it is important that nominated pictures have as high a resolution as possible." I understand that I might be pushing the limit a bit with the nomination, but since I have the high resolution image available, why not offer it to everyone?. --S23678 (talk) 19:53, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Ok, but I think it would be nice to have a downscaled version that allows users to see more detail than visible in the thumbnail without having to wait for the huge version to load and be displayed. Something between in the range of 10 MP for example. --NEURO ^⇌ 20:28, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
      • As said previously, look here (or make your own) ;) --S23678 (talk) 20:56, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
        • In general people are not aware of that or do not want to spend the time doing it, there could at least be a link to such a version from the image page. Now you are basically left with the small preview or the huge original. /Daniel78 (talk) 22:43, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
•  Support I like the picture and quality is amazing --Phyrexian (talk) 21:03, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Yann (talk) 21:15, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
•  Support great quality. --Banzoo (talk) 00:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Of course. Jacopo Werther (talk) 08:04, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Avala (talk) 13:28, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Kjetil_r 13:47, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Aqwis (talk) 16:51, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Jonathunder (talk) 17:09, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --ianaré (talk) 19:33, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
•  Support O M G! Rastrojo _(D•ES) 21:37, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --NEURO ^⇌ 21:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment I wish I were able to see it, but my browser cannot load the image :(--Mbz1 (talk) 23:41, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Tried this, or using another browser? If not working, try saving the image on your computer. --S23678 (talk) 00:22, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Great!--Mbz1 (talk) 01:21, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Wow!-- TonyBallioni (talk) 00:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
•  Support, although my browser can't load it. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:19, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
•  Support, --Vprisivko (talk) 09:23, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Of course. The outstanding image quality and that high image resolution convinces me absolutely. --High Contrast (talk) 14:30, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
•  Support - Tiptoety ^talk 19:24, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
•  Support —kallerna™ 11:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
•  Support The object, the size, the quality... unbelievable and breathtaking.--Adi (talk) 00:29, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Congratulations that everything went off all right! --Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:44, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Daniel78 (talk) 21:48, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places