Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:München - Olympische Bauten.jpg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

File:München - Olympische Bauten.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Sep 2016 at 11:20:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Munich: Olympic Parc
The colour space is defined in the EXIF as "sRGB", please look again or see here File:EXIF-Data of Image Olympische Bauten.jpg (marked with the two red dots). I've copied the EXIF from one original single shot to this pano as I do usual since you've pointed that out. --Wladyslaw (talk) 04:29, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The ColorSpace EXIF tag has two values: sRGB and Uncalibrated. It is completely ignored by all browsers. The problem is the lack of embedded colour profile, which is the only way to accurately define the colours in a JPG. See User:Colin/BrowserTest. Compare your image EXIF with my image EXIF. In mine it says "Embedded color profile: “sRGB” and you can scroll down to the bottom for ICC_Profile and click to see all the embedded data. With yours it says "WARNING: Color space tagged as sRGB, without an embedded color profile. Windows and Mac browsers and apps treat the colors randomly." and there is no ICC_Profile section at all. All professional image-making software can be configured to embed the colour profile in a JPG and most do this as standard (e.g. Lightroom, Photoshop). -- Colin (talk) 07:35, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have copied the EXIF of the original, non edited file, and I don't have the faintest idea how to fit to your perception and I'm sorry to have no time to study several technical descriptions. So far it wasn't a problem since I have copied the EXIF and this time I did it the same way like any other time in the close past. --Wladyslaw (talk) 14:01, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. I thought we'd fixed this problem but I can't find the earlier FPC where it was resolved. I did find this PFC from 2011. Five years is a long time to refuse to understand the issue and the very easy fix. All modern photo software will embed colour profiles if you set them up correctly. The colour profile is not an EXIF tag. -- Colin (talk) 15:34, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Colin: , @Taxiarchos228: you might be looking for this or this. All I can notice now is that Wladyslaw seems to no longer use the Gimp, which I found to be the culprit in stripping the colour profile away. - Benh (talk) 17:10, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wenn ich mal der Einfachheit halber auf Deutsch intervenieren darf: Es gibt einen Unterschied zwischen dem Colour-Tag (der ist bei Dir da, wird aber von den meisten Browsern ignoriert) und dem eigebetteten Colour-Profile (das fehlt bei Dir). Welche Software nutzt Du? Es ist sehr ungewöhnlich, dass das Profil nicht automatisch eingebettet wird. --Code (talk) 05:33, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Taxiarchos228: , I added the profile back here. I slightly increased compression, but no one should see any difference. If you're fine with that, you can use it to overwrite the current version. I think an FP shouldn't have this kind of flaw (and especially when it takes seconds to fix) and I'll oppose if this is not fixed (not that this will change anything, but just to voice my opinion). When one buys a rule, even if there are marks on it, it is useless if the unit is not indicated. cm ? inches ? it makes a lot of difference. - Benh (talk) 19:12, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Both sides aren't leaning any more, please refreh your browser. Colour profil is part of the EXIF. -- Wladyslaw (talk) 04:30, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Christian Ferrer: the leaning angle is less about 1 degree! sorry, but this is not a relevenat point in my eyes any more. --Wladyslaw (talk) 14:07, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WladyslawThat you think it is relevant or not is not ...relevant. A cat is a cat and a building leaning is a building leaning. I don't think it's indeed a reason to oppose, but, as a gentleman, when I see little defect, I comment about it in the case the uploader want to correct it, that's all. Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:10, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Benh: shame on you: how could you support this candidate? --Wladyslaw (talk) 20:34, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 11 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /INeverCry 23:01, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture#Germany
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:München_-_Olympische_Bauten.jpg&oldid=207591159"