Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Ferrofluid large spikes.jpg

Image:Ferrofluid large spikes.jpg, not featured

•  Info created by (User:Gmaxwell) - uploaded by User:Gmaxwell - nominated by Omegatron
•  Support — Omegatron 02:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
•  Oppose - Less than half the minimum resolution. User:Gmaxwell has much higher resolution versions of these pictures, which he's indicated he'll consider uploading once certain Mediawiki problems are sorted out (if they ever are). I'd definitely support a higher res version though. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 05:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

  What problems? — Omegatron 19:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

  I believe that he's unhappy with the way images are thumbnailed both on teh image description page and in articles. You'll have to talk to him for specifics though. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 23:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

  Change to  Support now that a higher res version is available. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 10:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

•  Oppose -- Urban 06:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
•  Neutral - the pic is great but why is the resolution so low?! It is done with a EOS 5D...it should be no problem to get a higher resolution. Or is it a crop? --AngMoKio 06:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
•  Neutral for the resolution. This image is superb! CyrilB 21:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
•  Support Could do with less compression, though. --Wikipeder 23:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: I have no particular desire to see my work featured. Especially if doing so would require me to upload a higher resolution version which Mediawiki will mangle and leave me embarrassed by the poor way my work is represented... for no good reason. I plan on submitting a patch to improve the image page thumbnails this weekend, but until then I will not be uploading anything larger than 800x600. The great irony of this is that below the Flickr ferrofluid image who's poor overall quality inspired me to create new images is likely going to be featured.... but if you upsample my image to the same size it still looks sharper, less noisy, and more clear. So, vote whichever way you like.. but the opposition based on a silly hard limit just discourages me from continued contribution in the future. --Gmaxwell 12:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

  Can you explain what's wrong with Mediawiki's thumbnails? — Omegatron 14:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

  I have elsewhere, on enwiki [1] (see the image) as well as on commons (village pump someplace)... we are the only large image posting site on the net that I can find that doesn't postdownsample sharpen. Worse, we compress all images (including image pages images) with a quality level that produces obvious artifacts in almost all images. The juxtaposition of artifacts and over smooth downsampling produces images which look out of focus. .. I'd previously been disappointed to find my images on other sites (I've had featured images on four third party sites! :) ) where in every case they took the artifacted image page thumbnail rather tan the original image... but the last straw was when I showed a non-wikipedia friend some of my newer uploads and on seeing the image page of Image:Reston,_Virginia_-_Lake_Anne_plaza.jpg he commented "too bad the building on the left is out of focus".

  In any case, I've written a patch against SVN head which uses --quality 95 for thumbnails 800x600 or larger (i.e. image pages) and applies 1px * 30% USM to images downsampled 2:1 or more. I can't find any cases where this causes artifacts or otherwise reduces quality (I'd like to apply a bit more USM, but I don't want to risk artifacts). I will have time this weekend to finish testing the patch, submit it, and make an argument to Brion.

  You might think the quality loss isn't significant, and I wouldn't agree.. but even if it was insignificant: I work hard to make images which are of high quality at every step, from the start when I solicit ideas from article editors, to when I process the output for upload. So even though I don't control downstream use, it is an embarrassment when the pictures *I* upload look less good than they should because of software behavior.--Gmaxwell 18:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

•  Support --Andel 10:01, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
•  Oppose --Lmbuga ^{gl, pt, es: contacta comigo} 14:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
•  Oppose

Voting ended at 02:41 on 28 July 2006 (UTC) votes after this time are invalid

I understand the frustration, but we're not judging thumbnails. The images in commons are not specically to be manipulated by the wikimedia software. I hope you get the patch merged or change your position, because the image is quite good. --Artefacto 23:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC) -- withdrawn --Artefacto 02:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• • I'm not too concerned. I don't care if my images are featured. :) --Gmaxwell 23:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, we do. The better the images in our featured gallery, the better our project looks and the more attention and contribution it attracts. — Omegatron 14:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
      • I never though of featured pictures as attracting contributors, after all.. most featured pictures were not created by commons contributors... the authors of these photos may often be unaware that commons exists. :) --Gmaxwell 17:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Image has now been replaced with a higher ressolution version. --Gmaxwell 21:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
•  Support changing my vote because a higher resolution image has been uploaded --Artefacto 02:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
•  Support Very intriguing photo Ceridwen 15:00, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Result: 3  Support, 4  Oppose and 2  Neutral => not featured. -- Lycaon 12:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)