Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Yellow Coneflower

Bee on Yellow Coneflowers

 * Reason:Sharp, beautiful, educational, high resolution. DoF is shallow enough for a nice background, but most of the flower is still sufficiently detailed.
 * Articles this image appears in:Echinacea paradoxa
 * Creator:Ram-Man


 * Support as nominator, Neutral for downsampled I don't like the idea of limiting people's choice to downsampled images for an image that looks "bad" at 30in x 20in, as would the downsampled image. -- Ram-Man 04:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Original Edit 1 Nice composition and enc - original's quality is quite bad at 100%, fortunately this is largely fixed in the downsampled version. --Fir0002 09:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The original was taken with an SLR, a very sharp macro lens, a tripod, and a fast shutter speed. Of course *all* unprocessed digital images look "bad" at 100% due to Bayer interpolation. Are you suggesting we downsample and/or photo process all images just to optimize them for web viewing? The Wikimedia software already does this, and for large magnifications the downsampled image would look terrible. -- RM 17:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree - while the quality of my images at 100% isn't as good as when I downsample, coupled with high grade lenses even my outdated 20D can get much better resolution at 100% than this. For example this image is a 100% crop of the original. And yes IMO if the quality is not up to FP standard then either it should be downsampled to correct this or it shouldn't be a FP. Simple. --Fir0002 10:17, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Neutral for original, Oppose downsampled version - For ethical reasons. Author is around and perfectly able to edit his pictures if he wants to. For a question of courtesy, I don't think it is a sound practise to create new versions of the pictures nominated for FP without previous agreement of the author/nominator -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It is sound. It is done here all the time. There is no problem with that Fir has done at all. Clegs (talk) 15:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That's a very dubious "ethical" attitude to have on a collaborative project like Wikipedia - images should be improved by the community as should articles. It is encouraged rather than being bad etiquette to create constructive edits. If you can fix it do it - that's a philosophy core to Wikipedia. --Fir0002 10:17, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It's destructive because it removes information from a file and limits its general usage. It's optimized for a specific viewing scenario. It won't look the same on 72dpi vs. 100dpi monitors. The original looks fantastic at 180dpi, but the downsampled one would look worse.  That's the ethical issue. -- RM 15:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Support Edit 1 Very good editing job! Highly encyclopedic. Clegs (talk) 15:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Great quality picture, and as Clegs says, encyclopedic. Macy's123 (review me) 00:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Support “Original Edit 1 by Fir0002” Okay. —αἰτίας •'discussion'• 16:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose edit1. I agree with RamMan on this one. Plus the edit introduces posterization in the bg. A few months ago there was a picture exhibition in Berne and Zurich by WikiMedia Switzerland, whith prints of some selected swiss-themed images. The lesson to learn from those guys (by their own account) is: the original, no matter how bad it supposedly looks at 100%, will always yield better print results than any downsampled version. Plus on a more personal note I would find it sad/discouraging to see the efforts of a contributor to provide full size original files are somewhat tainted by featuring a downsampled version. --Dschwen 04:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Support original and Oppose edit1 per Dschwen. Lycaon (talk) 10:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Support alternative 2, oppose others - why do people only want to see the sexual parts? Samsara (talk • contribs) 20:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

MER-C 04:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)