Oppose. Too small, by current standards. Dark foreground objects are very distracting. It is a nice object, not a good photo (due to composition, perspectzve, resolution). Mikeo06:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Much higher resolution source TIFs are available from the Library of Congress. User:Zantastik has uploaded nice higher resolution versions for a few of the Produkin-Gorskii photos (e.g. Image:Prokudin-Gorskii-19-v2.png), though not for this one. The only one I can find is here, which is unfortunately a version which has not been processed.--Eloquence*07:46, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That url didn't work and appears to refer to a temporary file.. I got the error "Temporary file open error. Display failed.". I'll try to find a copy tonight and 'process' it - not sure what processing is necessary though. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs)09:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It's a very nice image. However, given that it's not a Wikipedian-generated image, we should be picky. The low resolution (800px wide) is a problem - it wouldn't print that well. I'm undecided. Stevage09:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support. Love it. Fairytale castle design, wonderful colours, looks just surreal. I'm not at all worried about low resolution - it's big enough for me, and we have FPs that are smaller. No edits needed. —Vanderdecken∴∫ξφ15:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, beautiful, fantastic. A little small, but not too small. However, going back and taking a larger picture of as close to this shot as the photographer can would be wonderful. --Golbez15:38, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support. Overall a good image. I don't like the resolution much. It might benefit from a crop of the grass in the foreground. --Pharaoh Hound16:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support. I love Prokudin-Gorskii's work, but I agree that the resolution could use a bump up. Excellent composition. Miwa * talk * contribs ^_^ 17:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me? Can we please remember that this was one of the first colour photographs ever? The image quality's not exactly going to be top notch if it was taken in 1910. —Vanderdecken∴∫ξφ14:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course we can remember that, unfortunately it was not particularly clear that that was the case when I voted (I missed the "ca 1910" in the image description). I will support if a larger resolution image is made available. chowells21:46, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support considering that this color photograph was taken around 1910 when it was not yet even possible to make color prints Tokugawapants03:44, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really amazing, especially for such an old photograph. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Michaelpb (talk • contribs) 23:51, 13 May 2006.
Changing to support for the huge version. Suggestion: could this illustrate an article on the technique used to colour it as well as the monastery article? I remember thinking when I opposed it before that I might have supported it in that context ~ Veledan • Talk07:51, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fantastic, now that the resolution is up to par. Beautiful composition and colors. This is from like 1910, people!--Zambaretzu00:14, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I oppose the edits because this image is historical and the photo in its entirety is of equal or perhaps even greater significance than the view it portrays. It would be wrong to crop the Mona Lisa in an effort to improve its composition, for example. ;) Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs)15:59, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support the high res version, it's lovely. Note significant colour misalignment at the bottom, but presumably an artefact of the very old technology. Aesthetically pleasing, encyclopaedic, historically significant photo of an interesting subject in a high res image - how can we say no? Stevage11:08, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
'Note significant colour misalignment at the bottom' that's because three separate exposures of the image were taken of the red, green and blue components, and the water was moving, so they don't match up precisely. A very fascinating process. chowells22:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Edit 1. Fantastic pic of the building, especially given its historical value, but I don't like all that gunk in the foreground. Also the file size is way too big (remember lots of people are still only on dialup). I have uploaded an edited version of this pic which gets rid of the bottom part and also removed a lot of the artefacts through downsampling. --jjron04:10, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is meant to be a user friendly online encyclopaedia. The 'edits' are more accessible for all users. --jjron11:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's depriving those that want it of the highest quality images. There are *already* smaller versions for dialup users automatically generated by mediawiki from the largest version. chowells11:42, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On that argument you should be uploading everything as RAW, or at least TIFF files, so we can all get the highest quality. It's nonsense. The whole point of using jpg is to save file size, you always lose quality. There's no reason for a jpg photo of those dimensions to be over 8MB. --jjron13:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fully agree with jjron on this issue. Broadband users mainly are unaware what it's like to have a slow connection. And chowells, Mediawiki does an OK job, but it gives a imaget that is a direct ratio of the original file size. For instance an image which is about 500kb and is reduced from 1600x1200 to screen size by media wiki, loads up heaps quicker than the same image resized from an 8mb image. A more dramatic example is uncompressed PNG's such as this. It takes an age to load. Not to mention the fact that we (dialup users) want to see something that is full screen as well you know! Not just an image in a website. --Fir0002www09:10, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Either of the two edits. Has a great fairy tale quality to it. Have uploaded another edit for consideration. --Fir0002www08:16, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support any. Since this is a historical photograph, it would be nice if those who made edits could explain on the image description pages exactly what processing was done (cropping, color adjustments, etc.).--Eloquence*09:51, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I pretty much love all of Prokudin-Gorskii's photographs. They show an era that most of us wouldn't have thought we'd be able to look back at in colour. I wonder how much of it has changed since then? - Hahnchen14:50, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support I already voted on the non-editted version, but I support this one even more (hence the 'Strong'). High quality, beautiful scene, and a lot of history--what more could you want? michaelbTalk to this user01:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg?lang=en)
Strong Support. Love it. Fairytale castle design, wonderful colours, looks just surreal. I'm not at all worried about low resolution - it's big enough for me, and we have FPs that are smaller. No edits needed. —Vanderdecken∴∫ξφ 15:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
