Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Panorama of Bridgetown, Barbados

Panoramic View of Bridgetown, Barbados

 * Reason:Large panorama which displays many aspects of the downtown area, especially Chamberlain Bridge. In the background can be seen the Parliament buildings, in addition to the Department of Treasury of Barbados. Gives a good overview of the downtown area. I've tried to incorporate it into other articles, but placement in all cases would end up odd and uncomfortable. I believe it could fit in at least a few others, but not without some major reworking (see Barbados; Parishes of Barbados; Saint Michael, Barbados; Economy of Barbados because the scene on the reverse of the paper currency is this view, though no scans of paper currency are currently posted on WP; and on the same note, Barbadian dollar.
 * Articles this image appears in:Bridgetown
 * Creator:wadester16


 * Support as nominator --Wadester16 (talk) 04:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Serious quality issues, but I don't remember the name for this specific type. Can anybody tell me what it's called? Clegs (talk) 14:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Depends what you are referring to. Without downplaying a pretty decent image, it's certainly very lacking in sharpness at fullsize, there's a bit of artifacting (though I've seen a lot worse), there's some overexposed sky around the middle, and there's at least one significant stitching error (look to the right of that tall white building a bit over a third of the way across the image). --jjron (talk) 15:21, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Looks very fuzzy and uncrisp at full size. Dylan (talk) 18:02, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - As a group we cannot complain simultaneously about 1) an image being unsharp or noisy at full resolution, and 2) downsampling images. To be consistent we need to evaluate images based on how much information they contain relative to how much information their subjects demand - not their apparent sharpness. So, please bear in mind, when evaluating this image, that it is 1800 pixels high. It could be downsampled by nearly 50% and still meet the minimum pixel count on its smallest dimension. de Bivort 18:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I thought there was a bit of paradox there. Wadester16 (talk) 05:39, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * A valid point, and part of the reason I don't complain about downsampling (within reason of course) - I might be in the minority, but for mine, people who support images 'because it's big' are not looking at things the right way. I'd rather it be smaller and more pleasant and easy to access and view. Having said which, downsample this by 50% and I expect it would still be quite soft. --jjron (talk) 08:31, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem with that, though, is that you can downsample any pic you want on your own time, but I can't upres anything and get the original. Of course what you said is true to a limited extent (like in pictures that wouldn't loose detail in a downsample), or else the photos here would never be cropped or saved as jpegs either. It's when you're loosing a lot of detail for a little convinience that there's a problem. Thegreenj 03:27, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * A lot of users are still on limited connections, so it's not necessarily just 'a little convenience' - a 10 or 20MB image download (the only thing beyond the image page) is frankly totally unusable for them. I find it more often that people want it big to satisfy their own concerns and fears that there might be a bit of lost quality or something similar, not for the greater detail that is sometimes contained in a bigger version. And there's also the issue of the image creators that (quite rightly) don't necessarily want to 'give away' their images at huge resolutions to anyone and everyone, as that's effectively what you're doing when you put them on Wiki, regardless of what licensing you officially give them. --jjron (talk) 08:48, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

MER-C 09:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)