Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Dolina-Pano-3.jpg

Image:Dolina-Pano-3.jpg, featured

•  Info created by Mario modesto - uploaded by Mario Modesto Mata - nominated by Mario Modesto Mata -- Mario modesto (talk) 22:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
•  Support -- Mario modesto (talk) 22:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose I like the picture quite a bit, but downscaling is throwing away information (as if you would discard every other bone on an excavation!!). Lycaon (talk) 22:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
  •  Comment True. I downscaled the image from that one you linked. I tried to sharp it in its original size, but the result wasn't satisfactory. Perhaps my knowledge about touched images up is too short (I use The Gimp (like Photoshop) running on Ubuntu Linux). So, I thought downscaling it was the best decision to show a general view of an archaeological excavation, and, sincerely, i think i got. Anyway, if any of you can improve the original image (it's my own work) do it. I assembled three images to do this panorama to avoid showing scaffolding, like here. You can see two simultaneous archaeological level excavations: the first where the most of the people is, and the second under the planks. The first one is a Homo heidelbergensis camp and the second, is the level where the first remains of Homo antecessor appeared. I think you should vote the posted image and not the rest. Mario
    •  Comment Superb detail. Please someone edit the image so that the darker parts of the original (like the person in red on the lower level) get more visible without downscaling it this much. --Javier ME (talk) 08:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
•  Support --AngMoKio (talk) 09:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
•  Support All details recognizable. Downsampling is good for a picture if it removes noise and not information, but some people will never understand that. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 14:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
  •  Comment Thanks everybody. If you like or not the image, you can also vote it in the Spanish Wikipedia (here) or in the English one (here. Mario
•  Support -- DarkAp89  Commons 16:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose Photographic quality is very good, but it shows only confusion and some people on the bottom of big hole. --Karelj (talk) 18:27, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose I'm not sure what's the subject of this picture. If it's the process of excavating, I'd crop it and leave only top half, but that would cut one person in half. Generally - messy, too little space to the right vertical panorama makes it look strange. --Leafnode 19:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
  •  Commentbearing the proximity of scaffoldings to the site in mind, as you can see in this image (http://jorbe.blogsome.com/wp-admin/images/atapuerca2.JPG), and typicall photos of this site, like this one(http://www.celtiberia.net/imagftp/im343269127-Copia%20de%20Copia%20de%20img057.jpg), shown vision i think it is original and innovative: i've never seen a photo like this. You can see from the bottom of the site to the roof, and that's the wow effect it needs. it's my opinion. Mario
•  Support with my congratulations ! It gives back very well the atmosphere of archeolgical excavation where apparent confusion (which is in fact strict organisation) is a fundamental feature of the topic. Panoramic assemblage is an excellent idea for such an impressive excavation along a cliff and it minors visual impact of scaffoldings. Quality is very good and downsampling doesn't make any trouble. --B.navez (talk) 03:55, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose The composition is weak. Sorry. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
•  Support "vertical panorama makes it look strange", which is not bad. This is a good composition for this kind of excavation. --Javier ME (talk) 09:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
  •  Comment I'm not saying it's bad - only... strange ;) It looks like the bottom pit was being dug almost horizontally :) --Leafnode 12:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
•  Support I like composition. --moralist (talk) 10:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
•  Support -- Unique angle and composition, color is good, atmosphere and value is high. Visual impact is great Wiggler101 (talk) 12:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
•  Support -- Interesting picture. Guérin Nicolas ^(messages) 12:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Very informative. Vassil (talk) 18:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

result: 10 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer (talk) 14:40, 19 September 2008 (UTC)