Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Land Cruiser in Thorsmoerk

Land Cruiser in Thorsmoerk

 * Reason:Very dramatic picture. Very striking.
 * Articles this image appears in:Toyota FJ40; also, a number of articles on the German Wikipedia.
 * Creator:Andreas Tille (User:Tillea)


 * Support as nominator &mdash; Branddobbe 06:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose. It isn't a needed picture and what real topic does it illustrate? That a Toyota can pass through water? Dreamy 17:04, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It obviously does illustrate that. Based on which Feature picture criterion are you objecting?Debivort 17:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

MER-C 11:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose Because of point 5 in Feature picture criterion because it adds value to the article, and 6 because there is no proof that this is accurate. In the article this pic is in, it does not cite that this vehicle can travel through water, and this image seems to suggest that it can. The FJ45V model is also not mentioned in text in the article it is nominated in. Only this pic states that there is even a FJ45V model. Z1720 03:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, something went wrong here: oppose because it adds value to the article? And because there is no proof that this is accurate. So you doubt that this car is capable of fording? And the picture is not proof enough? May be you can clear up my confusion. --Dschwen 08:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Support This is suffering the same tech problems as the battleship nom up the page: contrasty film + low-end scan = poor definition and blown out highlights. But it's a good shot! The grain is way less distracting and the whole image improved by downsampling. There's no need to replace the original, just look at it as if it was in print (which is the whole point of a hi-res file). The edited version here is half-size, a little bigger than the original would be in print, for evaluation purposes. mikaultalk 14:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak support I agree with mikaul. Many of the scans are not promoted because of the super high res scan for original pics not intended to be viewed at such high res. Thus, the scan picks up a whole mess of noise and graininess. The problem is that many Wikipedians evaluate digital photos and scans on the same criteria, thus placing all scans at a great disadvantage (unless you have a very very nice scan). The pic is still exceeds the size requirements even after the downsampling...so it might be a good idea to downsize it. I know its discouraged, but no details will be lost in this case. In its current form, the noise at 100% is distracting. Nevertheless, the pic is unique and more or less encyclopedic. Jumping   cheese  21:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose Very nice shot, and I believe it is a great addition to the article. However, there is a lack of detail detracting considerable value from the shot.--Puddyglum 18:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Neutral. I like the downsampled version better than the original nom due to graininess being less of a distraction.  Presumably this shot is replicable and the lighting could be better.  Spikebrennan 17:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose - I agree with Spikebrennan that the graininess of the downsampled version is not too bad, but the detail in the shadows is lacking in my opinion.Supaluminal 04:15, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose - It's great as an illustration of the vehicle's fording capabilities, but we have no references establishing this vehicle is good for fording rivers so if it isn't and the engine is flooded this is misleading. On technical merits there is a lot of grain and some blown highlights.  &mdash;dgies tc 06:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)