Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Waterlily.jpg

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

Image:Waterlily.jpg - not featured

[edit]

  •  Info created by Jmbc2 — uploaded by Jmbc2 — nominated by Jmbc2
  •  Oppose. 1500x1108 and just 176 KB shows. Heavy JPEG artifacts! The focus is soft, and the lighting washes out all detail in the flower pod. --Dschwen 18:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Have a look of how is made a jpeg, and you will see why the first part of your comment is irrelevant. —the preceding unsigned comment is by Jmbc (talk • contribs)
      • Sorry, I have no idea what you are talking about. --Dschwen 20:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • A jpeg file size have nothing to do with the quality of the picture. In a jpeg, you loose quality if you decide it (you can have all the pixels from the original picture if you select 100% quality when you create the file). Also, you have a small size with a good quality if the engine which created the file is good. Typically, the processors within the digital cameras are bad because they are slow, and they have to produce a result quickly. They produce big files because they have not enough time to optimize. And a good software engine (like Gimp) can produce good quality pictures with raisonably small files, because a powerfull PC is behind. It's why to say '1500x1108 and just 176 KB shows' is irrelevant.
        • Oh, boy. Your insight into JPEG encoding must fairly limited if you think there is no correlation between filesize and quality. --Dschwen 11:41, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sorry chaps, you make some confusion about jpeg. Just google 'jpeg', read carefully what you'll get, and then take care of what you write. "1500x1108 and just 176 KB shows" is definitely a non sense in image compression. —the preceding unsigned comment is by Jmbc (talk • contribs)
          • My favourite combination, patronizing and clueless.. --Dschwen 17:35, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • With any lossy compression format like jpg the file size compared to the image dimension is absolutely correlational! At the file size you uploaded, uncompressed it would be at least 4.76 MB depending on color depth. To get a jpeg down to 176 KB (28x reduction!) means you had to have set the quality quite low. Even a picture of a sky would not compress that greatly without obvious artifacts, let alone a picture full of sharp color variations like a flowering plant. But please tell me I don't know what I'm talking about either. I've only been using the format since 1994. Talshiarr 21:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • You always loose quality, even at 100%. And not much can be optimized in JPEG compression. Marc Mongenet 14:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Strong oppose — Picture is too soft and yes, JPEG artefacts are everywhere. Indon 22:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Artifacts and resolution. This picture has potential. Please upload a better version, if possible. --Adamantios 18:53, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose but would support a version with better resolution -LadyofHats 22:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Day 7: 0 support, 4 oppose → not featured Roger McLassus 06:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/Image:Waterlily.jpg&oldid=12073868"