Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Las Vegas Strip

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] The Strip

Reason

Great night time picture, the quality and image content is comparable to comercial images sold in tourist shops. The image adds siginificantely to the articles on which it is posted.

Articles this image appears in

Las Vegas, Nevada, Boulevard, Casino, Hotel, Nevada, The Las Vegas Strip

Creator

Brendel

Nominator

Signature^brendelHAPPY HOLIDAYS

• Weak oppose. Nice shot, but weak oppose because of bad focus on left edge. Some downsampling, perhaps? --Janke | Talk 10:40, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• oppose can't find any focus. _→AzaToth 11:27, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Good composition, but not very sharp. --Tewy 17:40, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
  • By cropping the left, you've introduced some serious compression artifacts, so I still oppose. --Tewy 04:21, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. The whole photo is out of focus! Noclip 18:22, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't think the entire picture is out of focus, I can clearly count every singly floor on the Wynn as well as Ceaser's Palace-here even the smallest windows are visible. I take it that the left-edge focus is the biggest problem? Signature^brendelHAPPY HOLIDAYS 20:20, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - I would very much like more info on the image page: from where the image was taken, when, in what direction, and links to any buildings (etc.) depicted that have Wikipedia articles. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 20:18, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
  • No problem I added it. Signature^brendelHAPPY HOLIDAYS 20:20, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Blurry. --froth^{T C} 21:16, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

All of it or just the left-hand side? Signature^brendelHAPPY HOLIDAYS 21:47, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose Look at other featured pictures and then look at this. This definitely does not manifest one of Wikipedia's best pictures. It is blurry!! Wikipediarules2221 02:32, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I cut off the blurry left hand side. I of course don't think it's that blurry (;-)) as I am able to count the floors on buildings and am able to identify objects such as windows and cars. Signature^brendelHAPPY HOLIDAYS 02:41, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Could you upload the original again, but without overwriting? That way if someone wants the uncropped version they can access it. Thanks. --Tewy 04:21, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure. Signature^brendelHAPPY HOLIDAYS 04:25, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

You might also consider uploading to Commons. It allows a single uploaded image to be used in all the projects, and in all the languages, not just the English Wikipedia (See this). --Tewy 04:48, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

If have given the commons a try recently and have every intend of uploading this an a couple of other pictures to the commons. Thanks for the tip! Regards, Signature^brendelHAPPY HOLIDAYS 06:09, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support cropped version It looks excellent now that it is cropped. --¿Why1991 ^{ESP. | Sign Here} 21:07, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Does anyone know why is it in png format? --antilived ^{T | C | G} 10:02, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Well I thought that's the best format in which to save a picture. Why, would JPEG be better? Regards, Signature^brendelHAPPY HOLIDAYS 16:45, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

PNG is lossless, so it doesn't compress the image at all, resulting in a relatively large file size. JPEG compresses the image, creating a smaller file size, but can introduce compression artifacts as a side effect. And actually now that I think about it, I wonder how you managed to introduce artifacts to the cropped version if it was saved in PNG... --Tewy 19:46, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I see, I didn't know that. Thanks for the info! Signature^brendelHAPPY HOLIDAYS 22:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

And this is an encyclopedia, so if you don't know something, read the article! :-) --Tewy 00:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

True enough, I could have just looked up PNG vs. JPEG (lazy me ;-)) Signature^brendelHAPPY HOLIDAYS 01:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Extreme oppose as a featured picture candidate; may I be frank, but this picture is a disgrace to full view, large-resolution images! I mean, it looks better in the small view! Neither the original nor cropped images are up to expectations of a large image. It's a good shot, but the image quality turns me off. Even in PNG format, the cropped version looks worse than the original version. In my estimation, this picture is not of featured material. Sorry. -- Altiris Exeunt 03:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

To be frank, it is not that bad. I can see the windows in Ceaser's Palace and count the floors, in a building that was over 2 miles away form the location where the picture was taken. There are post-cards being sold where you can't even count the floors on relatively distant buildings. Signature^brendelHAPPY HOLIDAYS 23:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

If you'd like to compare this to some very clear night shots, see User:Diliff's page (Under "My featured pictures"). --Tewy 03:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, until now my main reference point were post-cards in drugstores ;-) -in which my case my pic doesn't look bad at all. I am an amature photographer, not a prof, but I am able to see that those pictures are sharper than mine. I do. however, have two or three more pictures that I will nominate in the fututre, they are all day pictures and I think blurriness won't be a problem with them. Thanks for your help! Regards, Signature^brendelHAPPY HOLIDAYS 06:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Brendel, perhaps you should shoot the picture as a PNG image, if that is possible. Doing so should help greatly. My main problem with the picture is the fragmentation. If you can try to reduce the fragmentation that occurs with almost every JPEG image, I think you'll get my vote. -- Altiris Exeunt 14:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted --KFP (talk | contribs) 15:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)