Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Octopus shell.jpg

File:Octopus marginatus.jpg, featured

Voting period ends on 13 Jan 2009 at 17:52:09

•  Info created by Nhobgood - uploaded by Nhobgood - nominated by Nhobgood -- Nhobgood (talk) 17:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Nhobgood (talk) 17:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Question Is it upsampled ? I'am asking because Oly C8080WZ has only 8mpx --Richard Bartz (talk) 18:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose formerly FPX|the image is upsampled (max resolution for your camera is 3,264 × 2,448 pixels and it is not identified. Lycaon (talk) 18:33, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support--ComputerHotline (talk) 18:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose It's heavily upsampled (factor 4) and losts it's details --Richard Bartz (talk) 19:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Karel (talk) 21:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Looks great at the medium preview but not in full size. /Daniel78 (talk) 00:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Christoph.fr (talk) 10:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Identification is normally needed for FP, and upsizing is not helpful. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose I would support if the original is uploaded. The image is awesome. J.smith (talk) 20:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
•  CommentThanks for the comments. I am still dealing with determining optimal resolution when saving a JPEG for quality printing. I will try and resample this image without compromising quality. --Nhobgood (talk) 20:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

result: 4 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. JalalV (talk) 03:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Alternate

•  Comment I have re-sampled the image with a less aggressive crop, straight from the original. Does this alternate meet the criteria ? --Nhobgood (talk) 12:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support I love it! --J.smith (talk) 18:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support /Daniel78 (talk) 19:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Nhobgood, please do not forget to vote yourself on your alternate.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Nhobgood (talk) 04:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Karel (talk) 15:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --MichaelMaggs (talk) 23:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Sophus Bie ^(talk) 15:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Christoph.fr (talk) 16:43, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Re-sampling is rarely an option. Upsampling is taboo, downsampling is seldom justifiable. The aim is to post as large as possible, but of course without upsampling. Your image looks good at this size, but lost a lot of information in the downsampling process. The oppose is for the downsampling (7,990,272 pixels → 2,116,800 pixels !!!). In any case, you have uploaded some of the best underwater pictures on commons IMO. Lycaon (talk) 18:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment Thanks Hans for the guidance and encouragement. Frankly, I am still trying to figure out how to crop the image to best represent the subject while not compromising the resolution/quality. Tips welcome! - Nhobgood (talk) 22:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Beautiful picture! But I have to agree with Lycaon. Resampling means that the picture doesn't look so good when it is printed, or under high resolution monitors, etc. (You begin to see the pixels.) Why not just upload the original you have (direct from the camera), and ask the wiki community if they have any ideas? JalalV (talk) 23:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

result: 8 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Lycaon (talk) 08:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

•  Comment Even though this is featured, I would still recommend uploading the original and asking for suggestions. A higher resolution picture would benefit all of us. If you can get a better quality version, it is easy to "delist and replace" with your new version at a later time. JalalV (talk) 03:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)