Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Insula Maioricae Vicentius Mut 1683.jpg

File:Insula Maioricae Vicentius Mut 1683.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Aug 2016 at 13:33:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Insula Maioricae Vicentius Mut 1683.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Insula Maioricae Vicentius Mut 1683.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Maps
•  Info created by Institut Cartogràfic de Catalunya - uploaded and nominated by Hispalois (talk) 13:33, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Info high-resolution scan of a 1946 reprint of a very rare 17th-century map
•  Support -- Hispalois (talk) 13:33, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose sorry but for me: "bad work" = low contrast. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 16:22, 21 August 2016 (UTC) Ups, sorry. This is a Firefox wrong view problem. This is a JPG-file without embeded color profile, false ICC-Data tags. Firefox can't view it right!? --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:24, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Yep, looks terrible in FF but fine in Chrome. INeverCry 04:24, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

 Question - Wait. What is this about Firefox? And how will it look on smartphones, which a lot of people will use to view it? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:15, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the problem. This evening I will try to get rid of those ICC-Data tags that seem to be causing problems with Firefox. --Hispalois (talk) 12:07, 22 August 2016 (UTC)  Done by El Grafo (see below).

•  Oppose per Alchemist. If it's hard to view, it's not a good photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:42, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Sorry, but it's fine with me. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:05, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Per Arion. INeverCry 21:09, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
•  Support I'm not having a problem reading it. Daniel Case (talk) 00:28, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
•  Support any chance to fix the profile problem? IE and Safari work, FF doesn't. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:05, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • It was using a strange, non-standard colour profile called Metis DRS 2A0 CC24. Tried converting to standard sRGB using Gimp – new version looks normal to me in Firefox now (but @Hispalois: please feel free to revert my version if you've got a better solution). --El Grafo (talk) 13:48, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Your version fixed the issue. Thank you very much! --Hispalois (talk) 16:21, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

•  Oppose This is not an original, just a 1946 reimpression. Far much less value--Jebulon (talk) 15:00, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

 Comment I agree that an original would fetch much more money in an auction but regarding the encyclopaedic usefulness of the image I'd say there is not much difference. It should be noted that this was a true reimpression, from the original copperplates, not a facsimile. --Hispalois (talk) 16:21, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

•  Support - El Grafo, thanks for fixing the problem. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:03, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
•  Support ~★ nmaia ^{[[mia diskuto]]} 19:57, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Jee 06:06, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
• Does the black frame need to be that thick? Is it needed at all? I find it distracting. --Till (talk) 15:38, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Jee 04:59, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic media/Maps