Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Polar Bear at Amberley Museum Railway.jpg

File:Polar Bear at Amberley Museum Railway.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Apr 2016 at 12:52:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Polar Bear at Amberley Museum Railway.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Polar Bear at Amberley Museum Railway.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land vehicles
•  Info created by Peter Trimming - uploaded by Bruce1ee - nominated by Bruce1ee -- —Bruce1ee^talk 12:52, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
•  Support -- —Bruce1ee^talk 12:52, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose A QI but I'd expect an FP to have great light, the driver visible and some steam coming from the chimney. -- Colin (talk)
•  Oppose I agree with Colin. Composition is trivial. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:09, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment Color space tagged as sRGB, without an embedded color profile. Windows and Mac browsers and apps treat the colors randomly. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:23, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Off-topic general color space discussion

Slaunger, the problem here is that all out-of-camera JPGs lack profiles. Saving a few kB seems to be important to the camera makers. Perhaps we should raise a feature request for MediaWiki to supply a sRGB profile where the tag is sRGB. -- Colin (talk) 21:22, 21 April 2016 (UTC) Colin Or give a warning about it when uploading offering to add the embedded color space data. I think some would loose trust in the upload process if the jpg file was modified during upload into a file with another size and EXIF without being actively informed during upload. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:11, 22 April 2016 (UTC) Slaunger, I was thinking instead of when the thumbnails are generated (and by thumbnail, I mean any image size that isn't 100%). See this fix to Mediawiki that replaces sRGB profiles with TinyRGB for example. A warning wouldn't be much use to 99% of users who would lack the tools to fix it. Ultimately, this is a browser defect as they aren't actually obeying the W3C spec, which requires them to treat all unprofiled and/or untagged images as sRGB and to colour manage those. Still, the only practical solution at present is to ensure our FPs are tagged and profiled and use sRGB where we can. This is getting a bit off topic... -- Colin (talk) 19:25, 22 April 2016 (UTC) Colin Ahh, good idea with the downsampled versions. Thanks for the link regarding TinyURL. With the warning I was thinking that the user could get the option of having the upload SW embed a proper sRGB color space in EXIF. I did not know the W3C spec requires that unprofiled and/or untagged images are color managed as sRGB. Interesting. And, yes, this is getting off-topic, so collapsing the discussion. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:38, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

•  Oppose - I'm not impressed, either. This is merely a decent picture, not close to one of the best on the site. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:44, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
•  Support I have seen quite a number of photographs of narrow gauge steam locomotives, and this is indeed an unusually good one. --NearEMPTiness (talk) 18:06, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per others. INeverCry 03:53, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per Ikan and Colin. QI I'll grant even though the front seems unsharp, but there's no wow. Daniel Case (talk) 05:12, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:49, 30 April 2016 (UTC)