Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Belfast Castle.png

Reason: The image speaks for itself. I did replace the original washed out sky with a blue gradient. I'm not sure if this is too much editing or not.
Proposed caption: Belfast Castle provides great views of the city of Belfast . A castle has existed on the site since the 12th Century. The current castle was built in 1870 by the 3rd Marquess of Donegall. His son, the 9th Earl of Shaftesbury, who presented it to the City of Belfast in 1934, and it is now open to the public.
Articles this image appears in: Belfast, Belfast Castle
Creator: Photo by Sparkypics @ Flickr - digital editing by Sagredo

Support as nominator Sagredo^Discussione? 22:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose photographs should be in JPEG format. The quality of a PNG can't do the subject justice. Cacophony (talk) 23:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A 24-bit PNG is higher-quality than a maximum-quality JPEG, as it's a lossless format. (Perhaps you're thinking of GIFs, which are limited to 256 colours so intrinsically bad at displaying photos?) However, a photo-quality PNG will have a much larger file size than a JPEG of similar quality. TSP (talk) 00:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm just not convinced by that sky - particularly for Belfast (for Tahiti, maybe). It's a shame the original is so blown; this is quite a nice shot otherwise (though perhaps a little lacking in 'Wow' factor). Perhaps you could try pulling in the sky from another photo (preferably a Belfast sky) rather than just doing a blue gradient? People might still have concerns about encyclopedicity, but at least it would look more convincing. TSP (talk) 00:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Found a "Belfast Sky" here [1] The blue was picked out a sky somewhere, I don't remember where. It's what I'm used to, at least part of the time. Sagredo^Discussione? 01:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose both versions. The castle looks like it's been cut out and pasted on top of a fake background...take a look at the tree-line. CillaИ ♦ XC 03:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Any fake sky is, in my opinion, too much manipulation. At the most, a sky could have filters applied to it. However, if the sky is blown completely, the image is not, in my mind, of a quality good enough to be a featured picture, no matter the manipulation. In this case, the quality of the cutting out of the castle & treeline makes it much worse. Even if this image had a decent sky, the out of focus back corners and leaning walls (right especially) are not characteristic of a featured picture. Enuja (talk) 04:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Cacophony, CillaИ, Enuja. Separa (talk) 07:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The original was uploaded to flickr as by-nc-nd-2.0, not GFDL. http://flickr.com/photos/sparkypics/181142562/ Who's been given permission to alter the image, and who's been given permission to change the license? Separa (talk) 07:11, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I saw the license here [2] (not correct either) and didn't notice the one at flickr. These should then be deleted. Sagredo^Discussione? 07:58, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Posted all images on PUI. I guess this nom is closed. MER-C 08:46, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose both versions by CillanXC; quality is not very high, too. —αἰτίας •discussion• 12:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose, the sky looks unnatural in both versions. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 18:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, sorry but this hack-job is nowhere near FP for me. --Dschwen 20:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Dusty777 17:26, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]