Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Yosemite Valley

Yosemite Valley

Yosemite Valley with the Half Dome in the distance.

Modified version

I think we are about to delist some mountain photos so there is room for a new one. I recall visiting Yosemite National Park as a child, and this picture from PDphoto.org really does it justice with its crisp detail and rich color. Its used as a rather small thumbnail on the Yosemite National Park page, but is a little larger on the Yosemite Valley page. - Solipsist 09:37, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Nomination period for this image is extended for an extra two weeks to allow time to acquire an anticipated potentially better quality version of this image. - Bevo 19:50, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the extension: Two weeks have passed (almost) and I'm still waiting for the hi-res images. Perhaps we could wait another couple of days? --MarkSweep 09:14, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Probably better to renominate it as and when the hi-res version turns up. Thanks for following up on this. -- Solipsist 09:34, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Nominate and support. - Solipsist 09:37, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support. --[[User:Brian0918|brian0918 _talk]] 14:26, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Beautiful. Enochlau 19:18, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Was thinking about nominating this before. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/^talk]] 01:51, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose - If you look at the full image, there's some serious problems in the sky. Autiger 05:25, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Yes, there are visible JPEG artifacts in the sky. Perhaps someone could upload a version with less compression, i.e. higher JPEG quality setting. I've uploaded a tweaked version in which I manually removed some of the noise in the sky. You'll have to look at the full image to see the difference. --MarkSweep 07:30, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support either one -- Chris 73 Talk 23:45, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Strong preferecne to the original version. When you compare the two images one straight after the other, the original one looks abit blurry, but I saw the original before the modified and the first impression that it looks great stuck. I dunno why, but the slight blurriness matches the photo and doens't detract. --Fir0002 04:05, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Just to clarify, I modified the original to remove the JPEG artifacts that Autiger pointed out. That involved selectively blurring a few areas, which I tried to counteract by selectively sharpening the foreground. It could be that I went overboard with the sharpening, though. --MarkSweep 05:08, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oh, and just for the record, I shall officially abstain from voting. --MarkSweep 05:08, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. Ansel Adams isn't PD yet, is he? Matthewcieplak 08:14, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Actually yes! But only for his photos documenting the Manzanar War Relocation Center, one of which I added to the Adams page just last week. He took a few other photos for the US gov, but it is less clear that they are PD (see Talk:Ansel Adams - if the 'Tetons and Snake River' photo could be verified PD, I would nominate it here). You've got another 50 years to wait for his Yosemite photos to go out of copyright. -- Solipsist 14:35, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • I don't know how Ansel got involved, this isn't one of his pics. Cavebear42 08:55, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. The first one has jpg artifacts and the second one is terribly oversharpened. Will support if a higher quality original is uploaded and if the license is confirmed to be public domain.Janderk 17:00, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: There is no doubt whatsoever that the image has been released into the public domain. Did you check the original image source which is indicated on the image description page? It even has a Creative Commons "public domain" icon on it. Regarding the oversharpening, I could redo the smoothing of the sky area and not sharpen the foreground as much, but I doubt I'll get around to this anytime soon. Maybe someone else could give it a try? It's not very difficult. About better image quality, PDPhoto explicitly offers hires versions (3000x2000 tiff files with 8 bits per channel) for $2 each. Does anyone feel generous? If anyone decides to purchase the hires version, perhaps indicate this here and/or on the image description page, and make sure that we can get the hires version under an appropriate license (see WP:BRP). I'm in the process of contacting PDPhoto.org myself. Update: I've been in contact with pdphoto.org and will upload a high resolution file as soon as possible. --MarkSweep 20:28, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Thanks for clarifying the license, which I should have noticed. It would be really nice if we could obtain a higher res version. Personally I would be happy with an image of the same size as long as the jpg compression is less. Janderk 12:53, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose Neutral, for the same reasons as Janderk - Bevo 23:24, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I've heard from pdphoto.org and will hopefully receive an uncompressed high resolution file soon. I don't have an ETA, and I don't know when the vote will officially close. If it's supposed to close very soon, I'd argue for extending it. --MarkSweep 13:23, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Extension in those circumstances (possibly resolveable quality of image concerns to an image that otherwise contributes substantially to a Wikipedia article) seems a good idea to me. - Bevo 16:55, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• support. Its a great crisp pic at either res. Cavebear42 08:55, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Support both. Especially unmodified. -SocratesJedi | Talk 00:20, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Can you see the flaws in the sky in the original? On one of my monitors I can't see them, and yet on another display they show up clearly. - Bevo 15:27, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Not promoted yet: +8 / -3 / 2 - There could be enough support here for a consensus to promote, but I think the objections would change to clear support once a version without jpeg artifects becomes available. -- Solipsist 21:14, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)