Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Gorges du Tarn Point Sublime.jpg

Image:Gorges du Tarn Point Sublime.jpg - featured

•  Info created, uploaded and nominated by Benh 19:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Info Tarn Canyon (in France, we use the word Gorge more often), seen from the point sublime. The point sublime is accessible by car, as you can see with the tourists on the left, but one can get here by footpath from below as well (we came from the left cirque).
•  Support I wonder how it stands after a batch of very nice panoramas from chmehl -- Benh 19:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Support --Simonizer 20:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Support delicious detail --Richard Bartz 20:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Support --Aqwis 21:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Support The thing that surprises me is the quite wide horizontal field of view. I would never have guessed that from the image, it looked as if it were 150 degrees or the like. Well, never mind, my instincts were misled. (It is late in the evening - give me a break :-) ) Freedom to share 21:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• This is why I've decided I'll include the FOV information for every panorama I'll make from now on. You don't always realize on landscape shots without "reference shapes". Benh 21:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

•  Support Beautiful landscape. It's worth the effort to climb up. la grosse 21:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• that vote was from the friend who was with me when I took the picture. I told her to drop a comment for fun, but she voted. Benh 07:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

•  Support Amazing sharpness. Vassil 23:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Support JukoFF 02:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Excellent! Lycaon 13:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose Too small to see details and no wow.--Sensl 19:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose As above. --Karelj 21:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• I understand if it's no wow to you, but I don't get the "too small to see details" point... You don't expect to see such things as cars on the roads below (1km away), or insects on grass do you ? this is a 10Mpix picture downsampled from an already very sharp 40mpix pic, I can't believe it misses details, and it exceeds by far the size/resolution requirements. Benh 21:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course I don't expect to see such things as cars on the roads below (1km away), or insects on grass at least not insects "of a bad macro photographer". It is enough I see some blurry people at the both sides of the image. I expect to see mach more details in interesting rock fprmations. Your choice of lens is strange. You should have used much bigger zoom than 17 mm you did and take few more frames to bring really nice details.--Sensl 02:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The point of that picture is to show the whole canyon, not to focus on the details from the rocks (but I believe there are more than enough) ; 17mm was good IMO. I need 8 pictures at 17mm to get the 240° horizontal FOV ! how much would I have needed at bigger focal length ? What kind of details on the rocks are so interesting for you to see ? Benh 06:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

•  Support Good work. --Thermos 16:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Neutral  Oppose Belle photo, but the image should be at maximum resolution, and not downsampled, as per the guidelines -- S23678 07:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC) -- S23678 18:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• I understand your concern. But I downsample for two reasons : improve per pixel quality, and not letting other people using my work without any mention of me/commons/wikipedia. I've found out that this happens... This is the only way I have to protect a bit of some hard work, and how I want it to be used. I don't make any money out of it (just to be proud of myself), but I can't let people use pictures that way. Now if commons/Wikipedia ever need the high resolution, I'll give it, with no question. Now I'll let you think, how many people upload 10Mpix/max res pictures over here ? Benh 12:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• En regardant votre gallerie, je peut voir que plusieurs images ont été promues même si elles étaient "downsampled". Il semble donc y avoir un consensus pour accepter des images downsampled passé une certaine résolution. Mais j'aimerais mentionner que la protection de vos image se trouve dans la licence qui est attachée à l'image. Commons est une bibliothèque de médias libres et peut être utilisée par tous (en suivant les licences), comme wikipedia peut être reproduit par tous. Quelqu'un voulant reproduire une de vos image légalement se retrouve avec une image à plus basse résolution, puisque le downsample ne fait que réduire la qualité de l'image. Je suis coupable du même crime (downsample), mais maintenant que je sais que qu'il est préférable de mettre des images à leur résolution maximale, c'est la position que j'adopte. Je vous invite à regarder l'image que je suis en train de mettre en nomination pour être FP (Image). Remarquez que dans "autres versions" se trouve la même image downsampled. Cette dernière a l'air beaucoup plus claire quand vue à 100%, mais je n'ai fait que de réduire la qualité. -- S23678 18:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• Réponse sur ta page de discussion. Benh 08:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

•  Support It would be unwise to do otherwise. Muhammad 08:40, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose it is a sharp image of the probably beautiful place, but to me the image is boring.--Mbz1 23:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Support --Lerdsuwa (talk) 15:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Support well enough --βαςε_LXIV™ 10:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

result: 12 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Richard Bartz (talk) 11:19, 13 June 2008 (UTC)