Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Layla and Majnun2.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:Layla and Majnun2.jpg, featured
[edit]
Voting period ends on 29 Jan 2009 at 06:00:01
Info created by unknown - uploaded by Durova - nominated by Durova. Restored from File:Layla and Majnun.jpg by Durova -- Durova (talk) 06:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Support -- Durova (talk) 06:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC)- Support--Umnik (talk) 16:37, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
- Support--Mbz1 (talk) 01:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- Support--GerardM (talk) 23:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Claus (talk) 05:36, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
- Support It is a lovely picture of a tragic story. -- Belasd (talk) 17:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Oppose I am not impressed. Crapload (talk) 22:03, 24 January 2009 (UTC)- Oppose --Karel (talk) 19:48, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- Support I like the story and what this picture represents. It is also nice to have good restorations. For a painting, however, I am not so impressed with the filesize. I'll support this one, but in the future, would it be possible to have larger sizes? (scanners tend to do a much better job than digital cameras) For example, the original LOC file is a 13MB tiff. Do you have a lossless version of your wonderful restoration? I would imagine it would end up as an 10-12MB png file, which is perfect for FP. --JalalV (talk) 22:58, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- P.S. I was blown away by your recently featured 50+MB jpeg of Brooklyn. That is what I would call excellence for historical pictures! It was: a beautiful original, expertly restored, and had very high resolution and detail. :-) --JalalV (talk) 23:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you very much. WMF software doesn't accept TIFF files, so usually I convert to .jpg at maximum file size. Some people prefer .png, but there's a debate over whether that's a good format for this type of material. Durova (talk) 00:12, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- I would think that if the original file is small enough that a png is less than 12MB, then isn't lossless without jpeg artifacts better? Obviously, for very large file sizes, then a large jpg would give more detail. Am I missing something? --JalalV (talk) 01:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you very much. WMF software doesn't accept TIFF files, so usually I convert to .jpg at maximum file size. Some people prefer .png, but there's a debate over whether that's a good format for this type of material. Durova (talk) 00:12, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- P.S. I was blown away by your recently featured 50+MB jpeg of Brooklyn. That is what I would call excellence for historical pictures! It was: a beautiful original, expertly restored, and had very high resolution and detail. :-) --JalalV (talk) 23:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Like I have a deja vu. Too much of these. Vanjagenije (talk) 11:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
result: 7 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Ö 12:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
