Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Niah Caves

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 29 Jun 2011 at 11:34:58 (UTC)

Reason

Beutifully captures the size and the characteristics of the cave entrance.

Articles in which this image appears

Niah Caves

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/Places/Landscapes

Creator

User:starlightchild

• Support as nominator --Starlightchild (talk) 11:34, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Purely out of interest how did you find this page so fast? It's pretty well burried.©Geni 01:17, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support on conditions. Remove the period in the caption (per MOS), and then go in the article and enlarge the image similar to what is shown here. So it is actually being used in a way to show what is FP about it.TCO (talk) 17:27, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nothing prevents you from changing the caption, and pictures in articles, unless there is a COMPELLING reason why, should be kept at the default sizes so they work properly on various browsers and screens. Featured pictures shouldn't be larger in articles than any other normal picture. — raekyt 22:29, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • They should neither be bigger nor smaller from being featured. The choice should be made based on useful information. For instance maps which are too tiny to see are an atrocity. In this case, being too small, we lose the human scale. the wiki MOS guidance is screwey. I would look at normal web design guidance first and foremost. TCO (talk) 22:35, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support JJ Harrison (talk) 23:24, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support ©Geni 01:17, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • switching to oppose. With nothing further heard form the uploader I'm not confident of copyright status.©Geni 15:42, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm sorry, what exactly was I expected to do? With regards to your question, I did not understand it. Find what, buried where? I'm perplexed. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starlightchild (talk) 23:35, 25 June 2011 (UTC)Starlightchild (talk • contribs) 19:24, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Continue to be arround. This page isn't an easy page to find but other than that one off edit to Paul Cameron this page is pretty much the first thing that you edited. How did you find it?©Geni 21:13, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Since I created this page then finding it cannot have been an issue. Furthermore, how can my activity or lack thereof have any bearing on the copyright status of the image? Starlightchild 00:34, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Sad fact is that new users are more likely to upload copyvios. Why don't you tell us a bit about how the photo was taken? Or perhaps upload a another photo taken around the same time?©Geni
            • I took the photo while we were waiting for the bats that live in the cave to fly out (they usually do so en masse at sundown). But it was getting dark and the little buggers wouldn't move so we had to get out of there so we wouldn't miss the bus back to Miri. I uploaded a photo taken a few minutes later for your viewing pleasure, my dear Gestapo. Check my contribs on Commons for it, not EV enough for the article. Starlightchild 11:04, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • yes that looks legitimate.©Geni 16:20, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support Is it in focus though? I'm having a hard time telling. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 12:44, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support because it's not a bird :P Aaadddaaammm (talk) 19:18, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose very poor quality (no sharpness, eeh dark parts are very noisy), too many underexposed parts. Amazing view and the composition is okay, too, but really don't featured because of the technical side. --kaʁstn 18:52, 25 June 2011 (UTC)**[reply]
  • I'm sorry you feel that way. I believe however that if I had overexposed the jungle outside, it would not really be "an amazing view".— Preceding unsigned comment added by Starlightchild (talk • contribs) 19:33, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well in theory at least that could have been adressed by careful use of High dynamic range imaging. A say in theory because there is so much bad HDR stuff out there that it's getting a seriously questionable reputation.©Geni 03:20, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I personally think that HDR images have limited encyclopaedic value since they most often do not provide a realistic representation of what's actually out there. Starlightchild 20:49, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • If combiened with bad tone mapping yes. Otherwise the human eyeball seems to be better at copping than most cameras. As I said its mostly theoretical.©Geni 22:53, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Question: Is anyone else having rendering issues? It seems to start off with major artifacting issues, then after a couple minutes it goes into more detail, but still artifacting, and then it goes into more detail again. I'm not sure if I'm seeing an artifacted version right now...is this my computer or is there a direct link I can go to with better rendering? Spencer^T♦C 02:25, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • renders fine here.©Geni 03:20, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I'm sympathetic to how hard it is to get good exposure shooting from the dark into the light especially when the whole scene isn't equally lighted however the underexposure, especially on most of the left side, is just too much. It's almost heresy for me to even suggest it but you could have down sampled the image. While that wouldn't have gotten rid of the noise it would have made it much less noticeable and the image still would have been large enough to meet guidelines and be easily useable. Cat-five - talk 08:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nothing is stopping you from resizing, this is Wikipedia after all. Starlightchild 15:11, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 18:36, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]