Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:O Fanal, Ilha da Madeira, Portugal.jpg

File:O Fanal, Ilha da Madeira, Portugal.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Oct 2015 at 02:38:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:O Fanal, Ilha da Madeira, Portugal.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:O Fanal, Ilha da Madeira, Portugal.jpg

• Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
•  Info created by Jnvalves - uploaded by Jnvalves - nominated by Rodrigo.Argenton -- -- RTA 02:38, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
•  Support What do you think? I like the mood. :)-- -- RTA 02:38, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose Nice composition, however, another donwsized picture. --The Photographer (talk) 02:58, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
  • downsized, right?? Its inside the limits of the guidelines of size and resolution... And yes, they scaled down, it's bad, should be a rule in this contests to have the maximum of resolution, however stills a very nice pic. -- RTA 03:13, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Its a nice picture, of course yes, however its a Nikon D600, I want see more!. If we begin to support the downsizing, we are encouraging bad practice that affect the long-term quality of the images selected here. In addition to fruits, this is probably one of the best nominations I have seen you. Thanks RTA --The Photographer (talk) 20:01, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• itsy-bitsy level of  Support awesome picture, deplorable downsizing... --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:16, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose very nice mood, but imho too much downscaled for a landscape image (from 24 MP to 2,4 MP). --Ivar (talk) 06:23, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
•  Support - Benh (talk) 06:52, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose For the opposers --Σπάρτακος (talk) 07:56, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose Great ambience, but size is embarrassing. --Mile (talk) 08:50, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
•  Support Nice mood and the light. If this photo would not be featured because of downsampling and small file size, better to delist the 2nd place in POTY 2013 (its original size is 8949x4850px, Assuming the metadata is correct) or to change the rule about resolution, like "lower resolution than 4 million pixels are typically rejected". IMHO. --Laitche (talk) 09:34, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose Sorry but a 2.4MP landscape would need to be more than just "nice" to gain FP. Clearly downsized-for-the-web. It's rather over-processed, with a clear glow round the dark tree trunks (too much Clarity?). The right two-thirds are nice but the left part with the wide tree trunk doesn't appeal, and looks distorted. Being "inside the limits of the guidelines of size and resolution" in insufficient to escape criticism. On WLM UK 2014 we set a 5MP lower limit, reasoning this was sufficient to print A4 magazine page at high quality; I think other WLM/WLE competitions would do well to follow that. It helps avoid these "looks nice on Flickr" over-processed images that can't really be used in print. There are images that are justifiably small resolution and pass FP, but this isn't one of them. -- Colin (talk) 11:26, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
•  Support --Ralf Roleček 13:42, 16 October 2015 (UTC) the downsizing i'm not interested, to me the photo is featured
•  Support per others. --Tremonist (talk) 13:47, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per Colin. --Code (talk) 15:21, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
•  Comment Incidentally the 2nd place in POTY 2013 is one of the resson of my proposal about POTY election, That photo is very nice therefore I voted support for that but when I voted, suspected too aggressive downsizing perhaps about 40MP → 2.66MP but I thought that one deserve to be an FP then I voted support. However I think too aggressive downsizing is big minus factor, I guess regular members of FPC notice that downsizing, so what if there was 12 support votes of POTY candidates bar (or sort of) at that time, that photo wouldn't have been a candidate. And public vote (I remember someone call the POTY election public vote) members would never notice that heavy downsizing. Sorry for the off-topic. --Laitche (talk) 10:59, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Colin. Daniel Case (talk) 14:30, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
•  Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 14:58, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose I would have been totally fine with the downsampling in general. But then I would expect a perfect image, which this isn't: There are some disturbing halos resulting from the otherwise appealing post-processing. They are more pronounced in the automatically downsized/sharpened thumbnails, but still quite visible at "full" size. Could have lived with that at the original 24 Mpx, but not at this size. So basically: Per Colin. --El Grafo (talk) 08:22, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose For the opposers --Σπάρτακος (talk) 20:19, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
•  Support Jacopo Werther ^iγ∂ψ=mψ 18:40, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
•  Very weak support UAU! Mas a resolução... Hummmmm! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 22:06, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 9 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Mile (talk) 08:21, 25 October 2015 (UTC))