Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Mormon row barns

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Mormon row barns

Mormon row barns
Mormon row barns
Softened edges somewhat
Softened edges somewhat

One of my photos from the Grand Teton National Park article. A classic view point in the park.

  • Self-Nominate and support. - y6y6y6 14:23, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • reluctantly oppose, this version suffers from pretty severe JPG artifacts. Also it is a little on the small side, I'm sure your digital camera has more than one megapixel. It is highly encouraged to upload as big and high-quality as possible (as long as image sharpness allows it). Space is of no concern on the upload servers. --Dschwen 14:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
    • weak support original, oppose edit. Yeah, much better, still some slight artifacts but I think I can live with them. It wouldn't hurt reducing the compression factor until you get a 2MB file, this would still be perfectly acceptable. --Dschwen 06:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
2mb file for a 2 megapixel image?! That's ridiculous! As hard as it is for people with broadband to imagine, there are people who have to wait 2 min for even an 800kb file. I've got nothing against quality, but you have to remember this photo should be usable for everyone. --Fir0002 www 08:18, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Apparently it is not ridiculous if the 800kB version still has artifacts. You cannot base the filesize estimat only on the megapixel-count, it is the details in the picture that require space. And the picture is usable for people with slow lines. They can look at the downsampled versions. The originals however should be uploaded in maximum quality. Sorry, but I did not make up this policy. --Dschwen 08:33, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
The downsampled version however is proportional in size. I know whenever I look at a downsampled PNG file I have to wait like 5 mins! --Fir0002 www 10:05, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
MediaWiki does a perfectly good job of downsampling large images to smaller sizes for those on slower 'net connections, ensuring that those that want high quality images and those that want quick downloads are both satisfied. I therefore do not see a problem chowells 23:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above. Spectacular shot, though. If you still have the original, which should be superior in quality, I'd support it. bcasterline t 15:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Support either new version. bcasterline t 12:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Very nice, but far too highly compressed. I will support if a less compressed version is uploaded. chowells 17:29, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Still too compressed. chowells 23:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Support I can't see the compression that others mention above, even the hires pic looks fine to me. I sometimes wonder if my votes here mean anything if I see nothing wrong with a pic others are most unhappy about! Beautiful picture - Adrian Pingstone 18:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Have a look at the detail in the trees. It is somewhat hidden due to the random scattering of trees, but you can see subtle square shaped patterns. They're JPEG compression artifacts. You can also see it quite clearly (although they are somewhat hard to avoid unless you set extremely low compression) on the edge where the mountains meet the sky. I wouldn't say they are that obvious that they ruin the image, but if a higher quality image could be provided, so much the better. So many images are spoiled by bad processing. I suppose we have higher standards here than most people do. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 19:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
    • The best way to understand what people are talking about when they mention compression artifacts is to view the photo at 200% zoom. In this photo you'll see major problems at that zoom level. And even in the normal view you can see problems on the diagonal rooflines. Once you see these artifacts enlarged it's easier to see them at normal zoom. Also keep in mind that different people will literally see the same picture in different ways. Different gamma, brightness, and contrast settings on your monitor will make the photo look wildly different. In addition, if you have a large monitor with a relatively small resolution (for example - a 19" monitor set at 1280x960 resolution) everything will effectively be zoomed to some degree. What I'm trying to say is - Don't be discouraged because you don't see what people are talking about. Oddly, both parties can be right in this case. Also - I'll get a better version up tonight. --y6y6y6 20:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Better version uploaded. --y6y6y6 05:41, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Beautiful. There are still some compression artifacts at the roof top and on the mountain's crest, but I think we can live with it... Glaurung 05:54, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Lovely Photo. Good job! --Fir0002 www 08:05, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Have uploaded an edit where I've tried softening the skyline --Fir0002 www 08:18, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't see any improvement in the edit. Did you try removing the artifacts? That would have better been done with a blue brush, because in the edit the mountain tops look washed out in direct comparison and seem to have lost detail. Actually the sharp jagged horizon line is pretty essential to the picture. --Dschwen 08:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Actually I can't see any artefacts. But I understand your comment. Looking at them side by side the original looks better. Viewed on it's own the edit is a little better in the skyline IMO --Fir0002 www 10:05, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Now it's great! Staxringold 12:11, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose -- It's a great pic but its too compressed. I tried it as my desktop wallpaper and could easily make out the compression. =Nichalp «Talk»= 12:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Support for edited version. -- P199 15:27, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, excellent image. -- King of Hearts talk 01:11, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Support the new "original" upload. --Janke | Talk 06:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Support the original too. I don't have any positive nor negative opinion of the edit as I don't see any difference and I don't feel there is a need for an alternative image. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:24, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Agree with above. Mikeo 14:08, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Barns grand tetons.jpg Promoted original, not enough support for the edit ~ Veledan • Talk 12:37, 15 April 2006 (UTC)