A rather charismatic picture showing the two main characters from an award-winning television programme aimed at preschool children. Not the kind of shot we see very often at all as a free image. I appreciate that this is at the lower end of our size requirements, but I do not feel that it detracts from the encyclopedic value.
Support as nominator --
J Milburn (
talk) 16:58, 8 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Comment, I think we could use to know more about this image. Is it a screencap from the show? If so, was this in a year when they show was not playing in 1080i. I ask because I would like to support this since it's important to get freely licensed commercial material but, if this is a publicity shot then this is probably not high enough resolution to warrant support.
grenグレン 17:24, 8 March 2010 (UTC)reply
I believe this is a publicity shot (note we have a photographer name), and I'm afraid I can't really comment on the technicalities.
J Milburn (
talk) 18:37, 8 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Support I think in terms of a typical scene, this is about as good as can be. It took me a while to get used to the fact that Small looks more yellow in photographs, and more orange in the series - cf.
(sorry, 4MB image). I agree that the resolution is borderline, but can't imagine what additional EV would be gained with a bigger image.
Papa Lima Whiskey (
talk) 17:44, 8 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Support Good to have such a picture. Agree with PLW about the resolution --
Muhammad(talk) 01:27, 11 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Support: No problem with the size, agree with PLW. This type of image rarely comes our way and the quality is good. Although they've cooked the spaghetti a little al dente, ;-)
Maedin\talk 09:06, 14 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Support edit 1: Better.
Maedin\talk 23:53, 15 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Support--
Mbz1 (
talk) 04:16, 15 March 2010 (UTC)reply
The tablecloth - which appears to be a fairly standard red-and-white checked tablecloth, is, in fact, red and yellow in this image, and there's a yellow cast over everything. I've uploaded an edit; Support edit. I'd appreciate a little time being allowed to allow the edit to be considered. Also seems nearer to images in
the BBC siteShoemaker's Holidaytalk 23:29, 15 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Agreed, thanks. Support edit 1.
J Milburn (
talk) 00:52, 16 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Just to note, I've made some very minor additional tweaks to the edit. Basically, when you edit a JPEG, the main figures are usually fine, but the areas with very little detail were super-compressed by the JPEG algorithm, and this can show a lot more clearly when you tweak the levels. Luckily, since there's very little detail in those areas, it's pretty easy to fix. Shoemaker's Holidaytalk 03:22, 16 March 2010 (UTC)reply