Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Atapuerca

Reason: Panorama image which shows a normal day in the Atapuerca excavation. Hugin and Gimp were used to make this great photo. New nomination for cleaned-up version of image because previous nom was closed shortly after adding this version to the nomination.
Articles this image appears in: Atapuerca Mountains
Creator: Mario Modesto Mata, edited by Papa Lima Whiskey

Support as nominator --Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 11:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support again. Very cool and unique, not to mention meeting all the criteria. :) Intothewoods29 (talk) 16:29, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support I checked out the previous nom and the downsampled ones, and though I believe downsampling and still keeping this image quite large is possible, I don't see another reason to oppose. Spencer^T♦^C 19:51, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Clarify: Support downsampled version, Weak oppose original. Spencer^T♦^C 03:44, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support (downsapled edit, see (*) below) High enc, visually interesting. Slight quality issues are of no concern because of huge size. --Janke | Talk 06:36, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose This edit has made an already unsharp original even worse and lost a lot of fine detail through some poorly applied and unnecessary noise reduction. This image desperately needs downsampling as it has no useful information at this resolution (as I demonstrated in the previous nom). Leaving it at this res is the result of blind pixel counting and a misguided bigger-is-better mentality which poorly reflects on FPC's technical standards. --Fir0002 23:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make a composite where the areas that you feel require "fine detail" are preserved, I can upload my version from before white balance correction, or of course feel free to add your own edit! Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 13:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and would also support a downsampled edit. --Janke | Talk 17:10, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I put up a downsampled version of the previous nom. Spencer^T♦^C 22:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - If the original nom had been downsampled to 1500 x 2600, and no mention of the original, we wouldn't have had to go through the "downsample or not" discussion again, right? ;-) --Janke | Talk 14:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Right, but given criterion 3, I'd hate to promote an inferior version of the image. Thegreenj 22:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - (*)I'd rather promote a smaller, sharper version. What's the use of having a super-sized but soft image, when you lose practically nothing, but gain a lot of subjective appeal by downsampling? --Janke | Talk 17:27, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The changes in perspective from top to bottom are very disorienting, and the overall composition does not create an adequate sense of the what the physical space is actually like. Panorama doesn't seem appropriate in such close quarters.--ragesoss (talk) 06:16, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support downsized - Ragesoss, there is no other way to represent panoramas of 3D environments in a 2D image. That kind of distortions are normal. Diego_pmc ^Talk 09:24, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- True, although sometimes you have options to minimise the distortion. One option is to shoot from further away, so the angle of view is smaller. For encyclopaedic photos, it is usually important to get as far away from the subject as is allowed by the environment so that distortion is minimised. I suspect that wasn't possible in this shot though. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 21:37, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's a very sharp and high quality image with great enc. The distortion doesn't bother me at all. I see nothing that the distortion takes from the image. I looked at the downsampled version, but I'll support either because while the downsample is easier to view, the large version is more useful. TheOtherSiguy (talk) 14:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]