Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Gran Dolina-Atapuerca-Panoramica.jpg

Excavations at the archaeological site of Atapuerca (Spain)

 * Reason:panorama image which shows a normal day in the Atapuerca excavation. Hugin and Gimp were used to make this great photo. If you like this image, any of you can put it in the Atapuerca English Wikipedia.
 * Articles this image appears in:Atapuerca Mountains
 * Creator:Mario Modesto Mata


 * Support as nominator --Mario modesto (talk) 18:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose Though it looks pretty decent as a thumbnail, when viewed full, sharpness is quite lacking.  Spencer T♦C 20:10, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I know it's been said before, but we really are holding a double standard if we call sharpness lacking in 29 megapixel pictures like this, then pile on support for, e.g., Fir0002's "sharp" 1.7 MPs. This picture is extremely sharp at around 6 MP, which is still a far higher resolution than we normally see here. Thegreenj 20:44, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Then someone should downsample it. The image should be judged at full size and if it isn't sharp at full size it shouldn't be featured (presuming there are no special circumstances). There is no reason to have anything less than stunning sharpness in the FP collection unless the image is very rare or difficult to capture. Perhaps if it was downsized it would be better. -Fcb981 (talk:contribs) 21:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Fbc is right - there is no excuse for poor sharpness at 100% in 29MP panoramas as Diliff has conclusively proven. And you can lose the inverted commas because my images aren't sharp just because of downsampling. This FP is nearly 100% crop (I think the original was ~1700px) and you can see a 100% crop here. Sharpness comes from decent equipment, good technique and correct post processing. There is no excuse for a 350D to produce images with sharpness as terrible as in this image. To give you an idea how bad it is I downsampled the image to 50%, applied some sharpening and then resized it to its original size in Photoshop and I'd argue it's even better than the original - it certainly hasn't lost any information! Downsampled and then upsized, crop from the original. At 100% this image simply isn't FP grade --Fir0002 22:56, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry to single your photos out; they're just a convinient example of high-quality but medium-resolution pictures (and FWIW I don't really care how your pictures look at 100% so much as how the version on Wikipedia looks). I don't argue that it shouldn't be downsampled. If it won't lose any information, by all means, do so! But downsampling it hasn't made it higher quality; at best it's the same. To oppose a blurry 29 MP picture and support the same one downsampled is like printing a photo out poster-size and saying that it's lower quality than a 4×6. Thegreenj 03:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well no I can't say your analogy works. Because at FP the technical quality of a 29MP image has to be the same as the quality of a 1.5MP image - it's a linear quality curve (at least that's how I consider it). I'm not saying that downsampling will make it higher quality, I'm saying that the image quality is not that of a 29MP FP - it has to be downsampled to get to FP levels of sharpness. --Fir0002 13:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... I see what you're saying, though I don't agree with it. I suppose as long as the phrase "no information is lost" is remembered, it's an OK (albeit pointless) way to look at the guidelines. Thegreenj 13:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This wasn't in any articles on en.wiki at the time of the nom, but I added it to Atapuerca Mountains.  Spencer T♦C 20:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Support for the good EV. I think it's sharp enough. You might consider expanding the caption on the article, right now all it says is "Gran Dolina". Intothewoods29 (talk) 20:44, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I changed the caption to: "Excavations at the site of Gran Dolina in 2008: Most of the people are excavating at the TD-10 archaeological level, where there is a Homo heidelbergensis camp."  Spencer T♦
 * I reduced the size of the image and the darkness at the bottom of the image, where the red archaeologist is excavating, to show better her work in one of the main archaeological levels in Europe. Mario 14:15, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It's better but I think you can get it even better if you apply some sharpening. --Fir0002 13:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Highlighted and sharpened. i hope you like.
 * Oppose any downsampled version Whichever way you look at it, downsampling DOES remove information. Downsampling makes an image LOOK better, but in no way improves it. If someone wants to print this photo on a big poster, they would want to use the largest version available. If someone wants to print it to something much smaller, it is simple for them to do the resizing themselves. Mahahahaneapneap (talk) 13:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That's true Mahahahaneapneap. It does remove information. I don't have enough knowledge to modify the image in its original size. So I decided to reduce it. I would like anybody of you telling me how can I improve it in its original size, sharpening, highlighting, and any other thing could make it better. I am a linux user and I use The Gimp (it's like Photoshop). Better, if any of you can really improve it, please, do it and then, tell me how did you do. All together can improve images and wikipedia. Mario
 * Comment Added version 4, no downsampling. Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 19:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

--jjron (talk) 08:31, 12 September 2008 (UTC)