Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Immerged tree in the Mekong with boat.jpg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

File:Immerged tree in the Mekong with boat.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Jan 2018 at 03:31:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Immerged tree in the Mekong with boat passing behind
  • ✓ Done The decision to shrink the resolution of this file was motivated by the comment of Smial in this discussion. I uploaded too versions of this tree : one shot with my tripod, and this one shot handheld with a moving boat. The tripod version was uploaded in full resolution, while this file nominated with boat was shrunk due to the different settings, in order to increase the visual sharpness at full size, and to improve the speed of downloading. I'm not sure there's a big difference between both, but now the full resolution for this one is online too. Thanks -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:04, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Basile I think you misunderstand Smial's comment. The resolution requirement for QI is low, and historically some bird photographers uploaded small images that were heavily downsized. So Smial's point is that if those got accepted for QI at 3MP then why are we complaining about issues only visible at 100% on a 27MP image -- that just punishes photographers from uploading full-size images and we all lose. Btw, that bird is a great image, and anyone opposing it at QI needs to reorient their priorities for at QI. -- Colin (talk) 15:42, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Colin, Smial wrote : "in the past we have accepted images of this kind, which were downscaled to 3 Mpixels or even less to get better visual sharpness". Then, from that comment, I understand the images have been downscaled to improve visual sharpness. Maybe your interpretation is different, but Smial said what he said. Nevertheless, your idea is valid, and I understand it well, too. However I believe that reducing the size can be a clever thing to do, in some cases, above all when the subject is really blurry at 1:1. -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:06, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes for bird-in-flight photography the long telephoto required can mean the image isn't great at pixel level so some downsizing may be appropriate if the image is really soft [and sometimes such images are also quite heavily cropped]. Also at least one past FP bird photographer downsized in order to retain commercial value in his full-size images, which wasn't encouraged but grumblingly accepted because the photos were very good. There are a few other situations where I think downsizing is reasonable. For example, very high ISO images taken at a concert that have thus lost much pixel-level detail. Or stitched photos where perspective distortions have stretched some portions of the frame, magnifying pixel-level issues. But generally we wouldn't expect anyone to downsize a daylight standard..wide-angle photo or a studio photo, because there's really not any excuse other than poor technique or bad equipment. It is a vicious-circle if people start routinely downsizing images to improve sharpness, then reviewers get unrealistic expectations of sharpness, which encourages further downsizing... -- Colin (talk) 08:45, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 6 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--PumpkinSky talk 03:38, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Immerged_tree_in_the_Mekong_with_boat.jpg&oldid=276091490"