Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Monastery of St. Nil

< Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates

Monastery of St. Nil edit

 
Monastery of St. Nilus on Stolbnyi Island in Lake Seliger near Ostashkov, ca. 1910
 
Edit 1 by jjron
 
Edit 2

A spectacular and beautiful photograph. This picture appears prominently in monastery. It was uploaded by user:EASports.

Please note I have uploaded a far higher resolution version. Please reconsider your vote. chowells 04:14, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nominate and support. - Michael Hardy 02:41, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Sorry, it's small, a bit grainy and somewhat overexposed. Wonderful subject, though. —Cuiviénen (talk•contribs), Friday, 12 May 2006 @ 02:54 UTC
  • Strong Support I disagree. This photo is admazing. It almost looks like something from a fantasy novel. Tobyk777 05:08, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Too small, by current standards. Dark foreground objects are very distracting. It is a nice object, not a good photo (due to composition, perspectzve, resolution). Mikeo 06:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Much higher resolution source TIFs are available from the Library of Congress. User:Zantastik has uploaded nice higher resolution versions for a few of the Produkin-Gorskii photos (e.g. Image:Prokudin-Gorskii-19-v2.png), though not for this one. The only one I can find is here, which is unfortunately a version which has not been processed.--Eloquence* 07:46, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That url didn't work and appears to refer to a temporary file.. I got the error "Temporary file open error. Display failed.". I'll try to find a copy tonight and 'process' it - not sure what processing is necessary though. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It's a very nice image. However, given that it's not a Wikipedian-generated image, we should be picky. The low resolution (800px wide) is a problem - it wouldn't print that well. I'm undecided. Stevage 09:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose due to size. Fantastic subject, though -- were a higher resolution image to be found, I'd certainly support it. bcasterline t 13:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Strong Support. Love it. Fairytale castle design, wonderful colours, looks just surreal. I'm not at all worried about low resolution - it's big enough for me, and we have FPs that are smaller. No edits needed. —Vanderdecken∴∫ξφ 15:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, beautiful, fantastic. A little small, but not too small. However, going back and taking a larger picture of as close to this shot as the photographer can would be wonderful. --Golbez 15:38, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Uploaded higher res version. ed g2s • talk 16:06, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. ed g2s • talk 16:06, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support. Overall a good image. I don't like the resolution much. It might benefit from a crop of the grass in the foreground. --Pharaoh Hound 16:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support either of the new edits. I'm happy. What's the difference between the two edits? --Pharaoh Hound 17:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support. I love Prokudin-Gorskii's work, but I agree that the resolution could use a bump up. Excellent composition. Miwa * talk * contribs ^_^ 17:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The artifacts and smudges don't bother anyone else? howcheng {chat} 18:16, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Oppose Leaning to the right, surely? *Support - Adrian Pingstone 18:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Is that your only reason for opposing? It isn't leaning even the slightest bit as far as I can see. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:44, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Still too small I reckon, and I find the foreground too prominent ~ Veledan • Talk 21:16, 12 May 2006 (UTC) see below[reply]
  • Oppose distracting foreground, too small, colours look washed out, poor image quality. chowells 22:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Excuse me? Can we please remember that this was one of the first colour photographs ever? The image quality's not exactly going to be top notch if it was taken in 1910. —Vanderdecken∴∫ξφ 14:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Of course we can remember that, unfortunately it was not particularly clear that that was the case when I voted (I missed the "ca 1910" in the image description). I will support if a larger resolution image is made available. chowells 21:46, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support excellent historical image. chowells 04:14, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support original only I am surprised that some people support edits to historical images, IMO it's like cutting a historical painting in half and throwing the bit you don't like away chowells 13:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support considering that this color photograph was taken around 1910 when it was not yet even possible to make color prints Tokugawapants 03:44, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Tokugawapants. Plus, historic value. __earth (Talk) 10:15, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • support I think it as a beautiful picture. And as Earth says, it has historical value. Sotakeit 10:38, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, It's not close and it reminds me of something out of a Disney movie (i hate Disney) -- BWF89 12:54, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Disney did not exist when the photo was taken. chowells 20:05, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nuetral It looks nice... almost an art piece instead of a real building. But the colours seem very light. sikander 21:26, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Really amazing, especially for such an old photograph. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Michaelpb (talk • contribs) 23:51, 13 May 2006.

Please note I have uploaded a far higher resolution version. Please reconsider your vote. chowells 04:14, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Changing to support for the huge version. Suggestion: could this illustrate an article on the technique used to colour it as well as the monastery article? I remember thinking when I opposed it before that I might have supported it in that context ~ Veledan • Talk 07:51, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Wow! That is an amazing picture. Mr. Turcottetalk 21:33, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Fantastic, now that the resolution is up to par. Beautiful composition and colors. This is from like 1910, people!--Zambaretzu 00:14, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support original high res image only. This is a sufficiently high res image and of historical significance. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I oppose the edits because this image is historical and the photo in its entirety is of equal or perhaps even greater significance than the view it portrays. It would be wrong to crop the Mona Lisa in an effort to improve its composition, for example. ;) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 15:59, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the high res version, it's lovely. Note significant colour misalignment at the bottom, but presumably an artefact of the very old technology. Aesthetically pleasing, encyclopaedic, historically significant photo of an interesting subject in a high res image - how can we say no? Stevage 11:08, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • 'Note significant colour misalignment at the bottom' that's because three separate exposures of the image were taken of the red, green and blue components, and the water was moving, so they don't match up precisely. A very fascinating process. chowells 22:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Edit 1. Fantastic pic of the building, especially given its historical value, but I don't like all that gunk in the foreground. Also the file size is way too big (remember lots of people are still only on dialup). I have uploaded an edited version of this pic which gets rid of the bottom part and also removed a lot of the artefacts through downsampling. --jjron 04:10, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • "the file size is way too big" then don't download the largest version! 84.9.223.82 10:44, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is meant to be a user friendly online encyclopaedia. The 'edits' are more accessible for all users. --jjron 11:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it's depriving those that want it of the highest quality images. There are *already* smaller versions for dialup users automatically generated by mediawiki from the largest version. chowells 11:42, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • On that argument you should be uploading everything as RAW, or at least TIFF files, so we can all get the highest quality. It's nonsense. The whole point of using jpg is to save file size, you always lose quality. There's no reason for a jpg photo of those dimensions to be over 8MB. --jjron 13:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I would upload TIFFs if possible. Images scanned from my scanner are archived as TIFFs, and images from my camera are RAWs, and then developed into TIFFs, before being archived. Of course I make low quality resolution JPEGs for previewing. chowells 13:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fully agree with jjron on this issue. Broadband users mainly are unaware what it's like to have a slow connection. And chowells, Mediawiki does an OK job, but it gives a imaget that is a direct ratio of the original file size. For instance an image which is about 500kb and is reduced from 1600x1200 to screen size by media wiki, loads up heaps quicker than the same image resized from an 8mb image. A more dramatic example is uncompressed PNG's such as this. It takes an age to load. Not to mention the fact that we (dialup users) want to see something that is full screen as well you know! Not just an image in a website. --Fir0002 www 09:10, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually I used dialup for many many many years, and I still use dialup or GPRS on a frequent basis. Fix MediaWiki if it bothers you; don't deprive those in the future of large images by fixing the symptoms. chowells 13:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • We are not just being selfish or pernickety dialup users who want to deprive you of your big pictures. There are other considerations. Remember chowells that you are an expert user. As a teacher and network admin, I deal everyday with kids, and adults for that matter, who are fumbling around and don't really know what they're doing. I direct them to Wikipedia as a great resource, but they don't realise that clicking on that one link for this big 8MB photo will cost them a tenth of their default internet access for the year, and what's more, they shouldn't have to. Now, surely isn't one of the key target groups for Wikipedia students and the education market? (And please no one give some flippant comment about 'why don't I teach them to use it properly' - multiply my experience by a worldwide audience of people that don't want to think or know about the details of how it works; they just want to use it.) I reiterate my earlier argument with some added detail - if we are the experts, we should be making it user friendly whilst maintaining quality. The general principles that myself and Fir0002 are espousing are attempting to find that balance. If we fail to do that then I think we have lost sight of the purpose of this project. And if you still don't want to consider the 'average' user who doesn't understand all the computer technicalities, and dialup users, then consider Wikimedia itself; if we all start uploading everything as 10 or 20MB files...well I shouldn't need to spell out what effect that would have on either loss of functionality or blowing out their hardware and bandwidth needs and therefore costs to cope with the sudden surge in demand. Perhaps if you really want photos at that high quality you should be getting them from specialist photographic websites. --jjron 16:13, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support either version. Technicolor for still photographs... - Glaurung 06:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support Either of the two edits. Has a great fairy tale quality to it. Have uploaded another edit for consideration. --Fir0002 www 08:16, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support any. Since this is a historical photograph, it would be nice if those who made edits could explain on the image description pages exactly what processing was done (cropping, color adjustments, etc.).--Eloquence* 09:51, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair call. I basically just cropped mine and downsampled. Have updated the description page. --jjron 11:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I pretty much love all of Prokudin-Gorskii's photographs. They show an era that most of us wouldn't have thought we'd be able to look back at in colour. I wonder how much of it has changed since then? - Hahnchen 14:50, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support Edit 2 Beautiful photograph! I look forward to seeing it on the main page.--Circle-Green 17:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Excellent Architecture, excellent colour, excellent photo.--Aled D 19:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support I already voted on the non-editted version, but I support this one even more (hence the 'Strong'). High quality, beautiful scene, and a lot of history--what more could you want? michaelb Talk to this user 01:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I love the way colors look in the three exposure images. Another featured pic is great Image:Prokudin-Gorskii-19.jpg -Ravedave 02:02, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Very elegant picture that displays quite a bit. Staxringold 11:49, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Prokudin-Gorskii-09-edit2.jpg Ravedave 03:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Monastery_of_St._Nil&oldid=1076562769"