Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Lake Tanganyika
a Wikipedia:Featured picture
This is a self-nomation, taken by me while watching the evening catch being brought in at Mishembe Bay on Lake Tanganyika. It also appears on Estonian wikipedia. I think it's a beautiful image of a great lake. - Worldtraveller 22:50, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Support (self nomination) - Worldtraveller 22:50, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Support --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 03:46, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Oppose, but only because of its very small size, which obscures much detail. I see you have a larger version in your gallery [1]. Are you releasing a small version only under the GFDL with a specific reason? I would support if you uploaded the larger version. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 06:27, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)Oppose.I really like the pic and the colours,but the Wikipedia version is too low res; the larger version online [2] has some unfortunate JPEG compression artifacts, for example, just above the tree line/horizon. — Matt 09:06, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)- I have uploaded the larger version, having not noticed that another user did it just before I did (uploaded a smaller version originally due to wanting to be a bit cautious at first when releasing my babies into the big scary world of wikipedia). I can't see JPEG artefacts on my monitor, but I can upload a less compressed version at the weekend. Worldtraveller 14:32, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Thanks for uploading the less compressed version! (And if you get the chance to dig out your slides, a larger resolution would also be appreciated). — Matt 16:27, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I have uploaded the larger version, having not noticed that another user did it just before I did (uploaded a smaller version originally due to wanting to be a bit cautious at first when releasing my babies into the big scary world of wikipedia). I can't see JPEG artefacts on my monitor, but I can upload a less compressed version at the weekend. Worldtraveller 14:32, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Support. (and I encourage you to hunt down the previous opposers, so they can see the new version.) [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 16:08, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose, unless perhaps there is a version much higher res than either posted. Cavebear42 17:00, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I can do resolutions up to 3500x2500px, but I have to ask what you think is lacking in the larger version uploaded that would be provided by a yet larger version?
- I always say the larger the better, although 3500x2500 may be better suited to the commons. 1024x would be nice, with not too high compression. ed g2s • talk 20:38, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I am seeing a picture that is 700 x 460 and has jpeg compression artifacts around the sun and over the bushes, and pixelated people in the boat before i even bring it up to a full screen view. Im sure that the photo was higer res than that. also you might consider a png file. Cavebear42 23:35, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I always say the larger the better, although 3500x2500 may be better suited to the commons. 1024x would be nice, with not too high compression. ed g2s • talk 20:38, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I can do resolutions up to 3500x2500px, but I have to ask what you think is lacking in the larger version uploaded that would be provided by a yet larger version?
- Support larger version. Denni☯ 21:03, 2004 Nov 19 (UTC)
- Support. Pretty colors, no longer too small. - RedWordSmith 22:18, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)
- Support. James F. (talk) 01:01, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Support if higher quality is uploaded.It shows the African continent, which should get more attention, in magnificent colors.The image size (700x462) is acceptable for me (although bigger is better), but the file is highly compressed (34.9KB) making the jpeg artifacts too distracting for a featured image.Janderk 12:29, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)- Support. I see a 104KB has been uploaded. Thanks. Janderk 22:13, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Support large. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 03:08, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
- Support. -- Solipsist 07:00, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Comment - I have uploaded a less compressed version, hope this will resolve objections from those noting the presence of JPEG artifacts. Worldtraveller 22:10, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Come on... would it really hurt to upload a 1024, please!! :). Wikipedia should have good "source" files. Just because it's "about good enough" now, doesn't mean we won't think of better uses in the future (e.g. WikiReaders). (And if you're feeling really generous you could stick a really big one on the Commons.) ed g2s • talk 14:44, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Main problem with uploading 1024px or larger version at the moment is that the original slide is somewhere deep in my archive and I can't find it at the moment! Once I've tracked it down I will consider uploading a larger version. Worldtraveller 15:33, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- It looks much better now that the artifacts have been removed. still, this picture leaves me thinking, that is a sweet pic that he has, just not as great pic at 700 pxls. 205.175.225.23 17:10, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Main problem with uploading 1024px or larger version at the moment is that the original slide is somewhere deep in my archive and I can't find it at the moment! Once I've tracked it down I will consider uploading a larger version. Worldtraveller 15:33, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Come on... would it really hurt to upload a 1024, please!! :). Wikipedia should have good "source" files. Just because it's "about good enough" now, doesn't mean we won't think of better uses in the future (e.g. WikiReaders). (And if you're feeling really generous you could stick a really big one on the Commons.) ed g2s • talk 14:44, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I've a simple criterion. If I think "Damn, I wish I'd taken that", I support. Support. (do you recall your exposure settings? Come one, let us know...) -- GWO 19:34, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Thanks for the comment! Can't recall exact exposure settings, but the camera was an Olympus OM-1, with Zuiko 50/1.8 lens. I think I probably went with the meter reading or maybe a stop or two over it. Worldtraveller 15:33, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)