Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Mono Lake Tufa.JPG/2
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:Mono Lake Tufa.JPG, featured[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Dec 2014 at 21:26:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info created by Vezoy - uploaded by Vezoy - nominated by -- Vezoy (talk) 21:26, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Support -- Vezoy (talk) 21:26, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Comment This one seems to be already FP, or am I wrong? --Code (talk) 06:21, 1 December 2014 (UTC)- Support FP on dewiki, but not here. Daniel Case (talk) 07:39, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
- Support Ah, sorry. I shouldn't review nominations before the first cup of coffee in the morning. --Code (talk) 09:14, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
- Support nice. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:33, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- Support ArionEstar (talk) 17:26, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- Comment Why 72 dpi? Can you export the image to 300 dpi? --Kadellar (talk) 19:29, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
- Kadellar: the current DPI information in the EXIF is only a "fictitious specification" in the EXIF data. It can be changed from everyone and it is only important for a print, but it is easy to change the DPI info before printing. The main and important is only the resolution in pixel. The DPI info has no influence for an image view. It is simply total unimportant. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 01:15, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
- Take a look to the absolute same image
now with the 300PI info in the EXIF Data. Take a binary comparison from both images and you can see the difference: only the hexadecimal number for 72DPI (&0048) and 300DPI (&012C). Regards, --Alchemist-hp (talk) 01:33, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
- Alchemist-hp, but wouldn't it look sharper if you export it from original RAW to 300dpi instead of 72? From RAW, not from the same jpg. --Kadellar (talk) 12:12, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
- @Kadellar No, I wrote it: it is only a "fictitious specification" for printers. Only the thru pixel resolution is a valid property. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 12:27, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
- Ok, thanks for the info! --Kadellar (talk) 15:13, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
- @Kadellar No, I wrote it: it is only a "fictitious specification" for printers. Only the thru pixel resolution is a valid property. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 12:27, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
- Alchemist-hp, but wouldn't it look sharper if you export it from original RAW to 300dpi instead of 72? From RAW, not from the same jpg. --Kadellar (talk) 12:12, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
- Support --Jebulon (talk) 00:55, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
- Support --El Grafo (talk) 10:50, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
- Support --P e z i (talk) 20:35, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 12:01, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural
