Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Dubrovnik

Dubrovnik

Image:Dubrovnik_(near),_Croatia.jpg - Dubrovnik , Croatia
Image:Dubrovnik_edit.jpg - Edit, slight cropping, color fixes (by Alexander VII)
Image:JPEG artifacts in Image-Dubrovnik edit.jpg.jpg - JPEG artifacts as seen when zoomed 150% from the first edit (by User:Black and White)

Nomination of a peer reviewed pic that was sitting there, from the peer review:

I thought that this image, with minor touch-ups, could be a potential candidate for featured picture. The exposure and compostition look to be very good as it is, in my opinion; Picture can be found in the Dubrovnik article. Image was uploaded by Neoneo13.

Nominate and support. - Ravedave 17:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC) (Submitted to peer review by Alexander VII)[reply]
Oppose due to jpeg artifacting. Striking shot, though. -- bcasterline • talk 17:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, quality is just a tad low. Phoenix2 19:18, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Edit. Amazing looking place. Image quality is boarding on the unacceptable but this is still pretty nice. --Fir0002 www 10:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
High Support - Either edit. I wanted to visit Dubrovnik after seeing this photo on the Croatia page. --MosheA 17:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Sorry, that JPEG artifacting is just too awful. Look at the left end of the front row of boats - absolutely horrendous. Unfortunately, it can't be edited out very well. Also, I'd like to see a larger version for something with this much detail. —Vanderdecken∴∫ξ φ 18:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Like User:Vanderdecken pointed out, the JPEG artifacts are very noticible near the boats. I uploaded an image that shows the artifacts, zoomed in 150% from the first edit. I also don't like the high saturation. —Black and White (_TALK^CONTRIBS) 20:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Attractive shot marred by technical flaws. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have asked for a higher res less compressed version. I totally missed the artifacting when it was in peer review... -Ravedave 22:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The buildings look fantastic, but the water artefacting is just too much. You can see it even in the thumb image page before going to max res... Staxringold _talk^contribs 01:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I would like to know why this image is supposed to be PD. It was uploaded on November 12, 2005. Smaller versions of this very image are found here and here (different color cast) (linked here). Both images are identical to ours, examine the positions of the boats, the shadows, the cars at the right border, etc. Fuller versions of evidently the same image are here or here (linked at [1]). I don't believe the "public domain" claim. While it would basically have been possible that the first two sites copied the image from us, this is clearly impossible for the fuller version. It rather looks like a promotional image, maybe from the tourist office. Lupo 11:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This image is most probably copyrighted. The full image can be found here (as User:Lupo stated). The uploader, User:Neoneo13, probably cropped it and uploaded it to Wikipedia. —Black and White (_TALK^CONTRIBS) 19:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - End nomination and move to have image deleted. --Golbez 03:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]