Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Mont Blanc du Tacul depuis l'Aiguille du Midi.jpg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

SHORT DESCRIPTION

 Comment Also photo is more valuable because of its subject matter (today's color featured picture is of a less well-known mountain). At least here in the U.S. I have heard of Mount Blanc and Montblanc. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:03, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, interestingly enough, today's picture almost shows where my photo was taken from! Also note that Mont Blanc du Tacul and Mont Blanc are two different mountains, though very close to each other (and one route up Mont Blanc goes through Mont Blanc du Tacul). --Nattfodd (talk) 19:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do see one : I personaly find it hard to get such a contrast on the sky (without a polariser filter). One way to get this result is obviously to... increase contrast, but at the risk of giving your picture an overprocessed look. Turning it to B&W might allow to shortcut this problem. Another thing I have noticed is that a picture's red channel has a much darker sky and similar mood to this picture. Maybe Nattfodd use one of these tricks (did you ?). Benh (talk) 17:53, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I used a dedicated software for the B&W conversion (Nik Silver Efix Pro). I don't know what exactly it is doing behind the curtains, it could indeed manipulate the red channel. But if there is indeed more contrast in the sky, the difference with the colour unprocessed version isn't huge. It was after a big storm, with another moving in and lots of wind, which may explain the unusual light quality. --Nattfodd (talk) 22:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I double license my images when I post them here, as I've done for all the previous ones. If this isn't good enough for you, feel free to delete them. --Nattfodd (talk) 12:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to delete it, i just told you that there's a conflict of license. You may solve it quick by adding on the picture of your website (here) that "such picture is released under the licenses CC-BY-SA-3.0 and GFDL". Sorry this is Commons' policy, nothing to do with the good quality of the picture. Guérin Nicolas (messages) 12:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And my practice has always been to double license my pictures for wikimedia. I don't want to relicense them on my website, as I just upload them here as a courtesy to wikimedia (and seeing some of the reactions, I probably shouldn't bother). This has never been a problem before, but if you think it is, then the only solution I see is to delete the pictures, as I won't relicense them on my website. --Nattfodd (talk) 13:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nattfodd is correct. If you dual-license every version of the picture, the dual-licensing is pointless. --Aqwis (talk) 14:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Question I don't know much about licensing, but as I understand it the the image is already under two licenses which is allowed as long as one is good for commons. So is the reason purely that Nattfodd do not want to mention that on the homepage rather than a problem with the licenses used ? /Daniel78 (talk) 21:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
@Nattfodd : if you are the copyright holder of the pictures, you have the right to license them as you wish. Just to be sure that you are the original copyright holder (i.e. the holder of the website where the pictures were first released), send an e-mail to the OTRS system (it takes 5 minutes...).  Support Anyway, i support the nomination of this picture. Guérin Nicolas (messages) 15:46, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't see why I need to contact the OTRS while I am the copyright owner and have uploaded it to wikimedia under a fitting license. --Nattfodd (talk) 21:06, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
result: 13 supports, 4 opposes, 0 neutral => featured. Benh (talk) 19:32, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]