Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Corvus tasmanicus - Collinsvale.jpg

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

File:Corvus tasmanicus - Collinsvale.jpg, featured

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Feb 2012 at 21:02:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  •  Info created by JJ Harrison - uploaded by JJ Harrison - nominated by p0lyzoarium -- P0lyzoarium (talk) 21:02, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- P0lyzoarium (talk) 21:02, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Tomer T (talk) 22:20, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose insufficient use of the camera's native resolution. Regards, PETER WEIS TALK 04:07, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • (it's a crop) JJ Harrison (talk) 11:53, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • So just because the camera could have taken a higher resolution photo you oppose it? A picture is a picture, regardless of the camera that took at, am I wrong? --The High Fin Sperm Whale 03:38, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Deliberately using lower resolution than technicaly possibly is utterly unnecessary. And yes, I do oppose those who limit resolution by downsampling or disproportional cropping - independent of the image. This limits the possibilities of re-use outside the Wikiworld. One of the major aspects to a featured picture is the way people can re-use it. Regards, PETER WEIS TALK 08:55, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • "This limits the possibilities of re-use outside the Wikiworld." Yes, that's exactly the reason why we require a minimum resultion of 2 MPx. Everything above would fit that requirement. The cameras original resolution is absolutely irrelevant at this point. Arguing against the FPC is
            1. unfair, because this argument targets the equipment, not the image itself.
            2. stupid, because for this argument you need knowledge of the used eqipment supported only by EXIF data which can easily be changed or deleted.
          • "Deliberately using lower resolution than technicaly possibly is utterly unnecessary". This is just a statement from you. In fact you don't have any clue, if the author cropped it to improve the composition or downsampled it without any strong reason. Alleging the last is again unfair and stupid. --LC-de (talk) 18:19, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • What a petty reason for opposing this image. It's this kind of rule-craziness that discourages people from submitting images here. --69.225.14.10 21:38, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose -- per Peter Weis. TrebleSeven (talk) 10:48, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Strong support a very good and valuable image. We needn't larger images for Wikipedia too!!! It is exact and perfect for the full resolution of my monitor (2560*1440 pixel). --Alchemist-hp (talk) 12:31, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Comment Alchemist, I simply don't care about your WQHD display setup. One of our projects targets is the re-use of images outside the wiki world and the internet. To assure the possibility of re-use in print for example, high resolution is mandatory. Since we don't know how people like to re-use images, providing the highest resolution we can is a service to them. Given a situation in which people can rely on the quality of this project, more and more re-users will be convinced by our cause and the usefulness of free licences. Again: limiting the possibility of re-use is counterproductive to this process. Other users apply nutty licence combinations to decrease the chances of commercial re-use or any other way of re-use they oppose to. Yet this is allowed so far, and therefore no valid reason to oppose. Regards, PETER WEIS TALK 09:06, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, now we have a new rule: the "Peter Weis Rule": if the image isn't uploaded in full camera resolution then it is permissible to oppose it. --> absolutely NONSENS! "In the future I eliminate simple my EXIF Data or I manipulate it to a low resolution camera, perhaps to a 3MP Kodak DC 4800, my first photo tool." --Alchemist-hp (talk) 09:19, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think equity is important, and we should apply the same standards to all nominations, regardless of camera type. We assess the qualities of an image, not the performance of the creator. Ideally, the creator's name should be hidden as long the image is under assessment, to assure fairness. --ELEKHHT 12:42, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Alchemist: Despite being a timeconsuming endeavour, this would be rather useless. Since I know that you are working with a Canon 5D Mark II (SN: 530306722), and comparing the differences in terms of image quality should be possible on eye sight, feel free to do as you like. You are trying to decrease the credibility of my statement by presuming that my opposition is based on a rule, which you referred to as the "Peter Weis Rule" - why, thank you for this subtle move. The only thing that is nonsens (sic!), is your made up citation and rule. For clarification: I do oppose in this case, because the native resolution of the Canon 7D (5,184 x 3,456 pixels) was cropped disproportional. More than 50% of the image were cropped. I am fully aware that it might have been necessary to keep this distance to avoid scaring off the crow and that 700mm is already at the upper end of what most people carry around. To me a true featured picture would have been able to provide a larger resolution without cropping at large. There is no guideline that prohibits opposition to featured picture candidates. Despite the supports to this decreased resolution, you won't be able to convince me - a compromise is futile.
        • @Elekhh: I would have opposed anyone else who's cropping away that much of his native resolution - independent of the camera. The performance of the creator is what determines the quality of an image. Unregarded our desire to prevent this from being part of the decision-making process, we do considerate the performance of the creator as well. The story behind the images is critical to our evaluation, because it determines our view to the picture. Imagine a panaroma that was taken shortly before the photographer got killed by a landslide. It's just not possible to remain unbiased during this process if knowing about this. The idea is to produce arguments that are considered being objective or technical and blind out those arguments which affect us as well. In this case we don't know much about the circumstances under which the image was taken. And yes, of course my critique is directed at JJ Harisson as creator of this image and his extensive cropping. Regards, PETER WEIS TALK 12:26, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • You are almost alone with your (for me) unfair opinion. Our minium requirement are 2MP for an FP image. It don't must be the fuill resolution of the camera. We can be lucky to have this image. It is much better then nothing! --Alchemist-hp (talk) 15:41, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Strong support Per Alchemist. / Achird (talk) 13:18, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support per Alchemist. --Cayambe (talk) 16:05, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Intriguing "crime scene", good quality. --ELEKHHT 00:19, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Yes, I demand to have this at billboard HD size resolution. Saffron Blaze (talk) 10:54, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support per Alchemist. --LC-de (talk) 18:20, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Katarighe (Talk) 20:12, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Nice timing, deliciously done! Royalbroil 02:20, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- cropped image so what many FP are cropped, it a common adjustment during the FP process Gnangarra 02:26, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support 2000px is fully sufficient. --Ritchyblack (talk) 05:24, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support per Alchemist --Paolo Costa (talk) 12:36, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Enjoy your meal! --Schnobby (talk) 09:15, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral Very nice image, but I also agree with the argument of Peter Weis. I think we should increase the minimum image size for QI and FI. -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 20:03, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    YES, minimum 60MP and only using of a Hasselblad H4D-60 or a better camera. We have NOW the rule of minimum 2MP, not a fantasy resolution of more. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:20, 14 February 2012 (UTC) P.S. I can start to vote for your images with contra.[reply]
    •  Comment You are right, minimum 2MP is the present rule and this is why I didn't vote against this image. Please note, that I just didn't support the promotion to FI. I don't understand why you become so emotional and announce to vote against my images. -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 20:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Based on a sustainable POV, this image will be one of the first, which could be affected due to a new rule on image resolution. Currently we delete images that fall short to the 2MP rule. Again: our current image and FPC guidelines is not the only set of valid arguments for or against images. It provides us with a set of rules that are widely accepted within the community and therefore rather uncontroversial. As of now, there is no limitation on the reasoning for opposition or support of an image. Regards, PETER WEIS TALK 11:34, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Of course there is no "limitation on the reasoning", anybody is free to make an argument trying to convince others. But the statement that "currently we delete images that fall short to the 2MP rule" really confuses me, haven't seen such a rule. --ELEKHHT 20:20, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Right, I should have been more specific here: delete from Featured Pictures, i.e. delist. Regards, PETER WEIS TALK 16:30, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • Ok, let's explain again the background of this 2 MPx rule. We have a minimum size requirement, because the pictures in Commons are not intended for use in WP net projects only. This minimum size of 2MPx is widely accepted, because it fits also to bigger computer screens, different screens (2MPx ≃ 1080i HD resolution) and even to print media. (A 1600x1250 digital image equals a 13,55x10,58 cm picture using a print resolution of 300 DPI (standard in printing) which is fairly enough to provide reasonable good article illustration in a book.) You can suggest a higher minimum resolution and discuss this on the discussion page. Unless we don't have a new minimum size requirement the increasing sensor resolution will give more freedom to the photographer, freedom to enhance the images by cropping or even downsampling. Please don't invent and apply any Peter Weiß Rule without discussing it. It will just undermine your reputation. You can delist the pictures afterwards anyway (as we do currently with some older FPs not matching the 2MPx rule) --LC-de (talk) 18:29, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 14 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 19:18, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Corvus_tasmanicus_-_Collinsvale.jpg&oldid=67307600"