Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Berliner Olympiastadion night.jpg

File:Berliner Olympiastadion night.jpg

 * Reason:It's a great image of the Berlin Olympic Stadium during the 2009 World Athletics Championships. It may not be perfect at 100% resolution, but it is more than good enough with reasonable downsampling IMO. The exposure and lighting is great too.
 * Articles this image appears in:Olympic Stadium (Berlin)
 * Creator:Commons:User:Tobi_87

--jjron (talk) 11:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Support as nominator -- &#208;iliff   &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  11:51, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Not perfect but good enough IMO. Eye-catching colours --Muhammad (talk) 13:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose Dang I want to support this. But noisy, unsharp, JPEG artifacting.  Durova  352 15:10, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * But downsample it to just above the minimum requirements and suddenly it looks pretty good. See, this is the dilemma we face. On the one hand we want the highest possible resolution, and if certain members of the 'voting panel' find out that it has been downsampled, they sometimes oppose on the basis that a higher resolution version should be made available. But on the other hand, if it really were captured at low resolution, would you oppose it for being undersized, even if it exceeded the minimum 1000px wide? It seems like the only way to please everyone on FPC is to downsample an image to hide it's flaws and then deny deny deny. ;-) But in the end, it's the project that suffers because the image with the most information is not made available... &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  15:52, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. I have a hard time believing those are natural saturation levels. Kaldari (talk) 15:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You have a hard time believing a lot of things though. ;-) I don't think the colours look at all unnatural. The colours of the flags look about right, and it doesn't seem unrealistic to expect a brand new track and grass built and laid specifically for the event and lit by hundreds of powerful downlights, to be bright and lush. This image taken a few months earlier by a different photographer shows a very similar saturation. It's good to be cynical (I am too), but I'm not sure that you're always fair in your evaluation of realism. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  15:52, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Support For the same reasons I nominated it at Commons --Ikiwaner (talk) 22:35, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks - it was your nomination that prompted me to nominate it here, as it wasn't used anywhere on the English Wiki and clearly deserved to. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  22:51, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Support- a compelling shot even for a non-sports fan like myself. I was also dubious about the colours, but Diliff's explanation has convinced me. J Milburn (talk) 22:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Support per Diliff; nothing wrong with downsampling to "fix" the quality.  upstate NYer  01:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Support - Edit 1 only. - ☩ Damërung ☩ . -- 02:04, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Support The greens and blues are definitely vibrant, but that's not really a bad thing. Staxringold talkcontribs 04:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Support either.-- Silversmith Hewwo 08:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Support original, support downsampled only if necessary. If something looks good at comfortably over the minimum requirements (eg 2500x1500), and isn't fine at larger ones, it should still pass - the more information the better. I don't mind having 'courtesy copies' which look sharp put alongside (as here) though. Mostlyharmless (talk) 05:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Support highest res available. Cacophony (talk) 07:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Edit 1 High quality, very interesting and extremely vibrant colours... Gazhiley (talk) 13:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)