Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Io (moon)

The moon Io in 1999

Original - Picture of the moon Io taken in 1999 by the Galileo spacecraft

Version 2 - Added more background

Reason: high quality, nice pic
Articles this image appears in: Io (moon) and several other article related to moons
Creator: NASA

Support as nominator --Nergaal (talk) 07:37, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose crop too tight, and the edges look a little rough—don't think it's like that in the original. Diego_pmc ^Talk 08:10, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then look at the source: http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/catalog/PIA02308 10:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

That image is a lot smaller. The crop can be easily fixed, but the edges not so much. Diego_pmc ^Talk 11:12, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The link is the page of the image where you will find the full resolution picture too at http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/jpeg/PIA02308.jpg. Nergaal (talk) 11:53, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional support if the image has more background with a little softening the edge which can be easily fixed. BTW, the moon looks awesome! --Caspian blue 22:14, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to upload one with about 10% more width, but I can't get it to commons. Could somebody do it? Also, I haven't done this before, so I don't know what exactly you mean by softening. Nergaal (talk) 04:26, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Honestly I've considered nominating this pic before - but it wasn't really eye-grabbing to me, and the detail really isn't that great. —Ceran ♦ (talk) 22:24, 19 November 2008 (UTC)'[reply]
Question - Why did adding a bit of black margin increase the file size from 771 KB to 3.86 MB!?
- Probably the result of saving at jpg Quality 12 in Photoshop (or equivalent elsewhere). Unfortunately fewer and fewer people seem to understand the control of image filesize vs quality for web use, so just whack it on the highest settings they can find. Even saving at 11 would have probably only marginally increased the filesize, but would have shown no noticeable difference in quality. --jjron (talk) 07:58, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 03:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]