Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Mezquita de Agha Bozorg, Kashan, Irán, 2016-09-19, DD 85.jpg

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

File:Mezquita de Agha Bozorg, Kashan, Irán, 2016-09-19, DD 85.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jul 2017 at 07:39:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Bottom view of one of the iwans of the Agha Bozorg mosque, a historical mosque in Kashan, Iran.
Are you sure you got it all? I'm still seeing some green. Maybe the cache is not refreshed; I'll wait and check again this evening.--Peulle (talk) 13:25, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I got it all at 100% view, but saw room for improvement at 200%, so there you are :) Poco2 15:14, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, good. :)  Support.--Peulle (talk) 17:20, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Peulle, the FPC page reminds voters not to judge the photographer. We are here to review the image, which at 44 MP with sub-pixel CA in the original image, is really imo quite a petty reason to oppose. If this image was a Flickr upload, where minor issues generally don't get fixed, would you have opposed? I would hope not. Please leave such pixel peeping "improvements" as a polite request rather than a oppose. Your oppose clearly interrupted the flow of support votes, so is not without harm, and it encourages other voters to pixel peep themselves. -- Colin (talk) 17:54, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The answer to your question is 'yes'. I oppose any image that has such clear CA.--Peulle (talk) 12:22, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I can only suggest you read some books on what makes a great photograph. You might then notice that (absence of) CA does not figure in the criteria. Please consider that your oppose votes on such will actually deter good photographers from participating here, and that is not good for Commons. -- Colin (talk) 12:52, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Under the "color" section of the QI/FP guidelines, CA is listed as one of the issues/common problems and I have seen images rejected from both QIC and FP for this reason. In FP, this should of course be weighed against the criterion "Given sufficient "wow factor" and mitigating circumstances, a featured picture is permitted to fall short on technical quality." On the voting issue, I have looked at the FP voting section and see that while there is a "request" template I admittedly could have used, you are contradicting yourself: you give the example that problems with flickr images would not be fixed, so how do you expect a "request" to have any effect in such circumstances? As for whether my vote would deter others from voting to support, I feel I cannot oblige you; I must have faith in other users' ability to judge for themselves. I vote the way I see fit, others will hopefully do the same. --Peulle (talk) 14:07, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
While chromatic aberration is indeed a flaw, we are not robots nor is the any requirement that an image is technically perfect, whatever that might mean. The "wow factor" get-out for low technical quality is intended for images far lower in technical quality than this. The kind of flaw you point out here is irrelevant. It's a kind of nit picky "improvement only visible if pixel peeping very closely on a 100dpi monitor at 100%". Stick a High DPI monitor on your desk for all our sakes and you might appreciate how utterly irrelevant a faint blue tinge on the edge of a black line on a 42mp image really is. I don't "contradict myself": I was rather assuming you were a reasonable person, and were only pointing out the CA because you knew Poco would fix it. My Flickr question was supposed to be rhetorical. Your response, that you feel the need to oppose a great image because of sub-pixel CA, is quite remarkable. I have seen, over the years, good photographers leave this project over votes like yours. So there's nothing theoretical about that. Don't base your judgement of makes a great image is based only on Commons Image Guidelines: buy some books. Digging your heals in and saying "I vote the way I see fit" is no attitude to have. I'm not asking you to follow my opinion on what is great, there are plenty great resources on photography, and absolutely none of them focus on CA. Please leave CA issues for when you next choose what prime lens to buy, and not for when selecting great images. At 44MP, this sort of nit picking just makes Commons look foolish, and really is a huge turn off for proper photographers. -- Colin (talk) 15:08, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like your reasoning: it sounds like you're trying to pressure a fellow Commoner to vote the way you want, which is something I cannot accept. On the one hand, you're saying you don't want me to follow your opinion, but your whole line of reasoning definitely does: you want me to think the way you do - and I don't. As the Guidelines point out, different users may have a difference of opinion, which is the purpose of the voting system. I also disagree with your evaluation: these were not tiny CA barely visible by means of "pixel peeping", but clearly definable streaks of colour visible at 100% view. As for sources you want me to study, I use only one: the Commons FP/QI Guidelines. CA is listed as a possible problem and that's the end of it as far as I'm concerned. Whether photography books say otherwise is simply not relevant to me. If you're suggesting that any Commoner who has not actively studied photography should not participate in this project, well, I disagree with you on that as well.--Peulle (talk) 16:19, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"visible at 100% view" == "pixel peeping". That's the definition. And it isn't a compliment. Peulle, the guidelines were written when many images uploaded to Commons were barely 2MP, and many from that age, if you view on a HD screen, will not even fill the monitor. So, worrying about people viewing at 5x magnification wasn't in the minds of that guideline. This image is 1.4 metres tall if viewed at 100dpi. And you are juding something only visible from close up. Do you think, if Poco got this on the cover of National Geographic, that you could see the CA even with a magnifying glass? There is more CA (and colour moire) in your last FP than in this one, and it is only 6MP (from a 24MP camera) vs this 44MP. So, downsizing and CA. Are you willing to delist your own 6MP FP, or accept you are being ridiculously and harmfully picky on a 44MP image? If that's a downsized image you got to FP, then you are being hypocritical to pick faults on Poco's generously full-size upload. -- Colin (talk) 16:55, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, now, among us, and if I've to be honest I do consider the CA comment (specially the second one) pixel-picking for such a big image. I've already participated in similar discussions of whether it is fair and healthy for the project to use oppose votes as pressure measure to get a fix for small flaws, and I still believe that this is not a good practice, specially when you all now that I'll fix all quality issues anybody addresses here. Poco2 17:28, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There's no CA that I can see in my bridge photo - it was removed in PS. Nor is it downsampled, it's cropped to get rid of the disturbing trees. Oh and @Poco: I didn't mean to pressure you; if the photo had gained enough votes even with my oppose that would have been fine by me - this is a democracy. :) --Peulle (talk) 18:49, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is CA and colour moire to similar degree to Poco's earlier uploads. But to be completely fair here, you need to blow yours up to 250% so it is 41MP also. Then pixel-level flaws just jump out at you and there is no need to squint at the screen, whereas at 44MP Pocos's image is great. You believe in judging the images equally don't you? I magnify both images to same size on my desktop. Or do you think your 6MP image should not be examined as closely as a 44MP image? Perhaps you should judge Poco's image at 40% so it is similar size to yours? In other words, you are unfairly criticizing an image because (a) it was taken by a higher resolution camera and (b) generously uploaded at full size. If instead, we judge all images at FP equally, you need to find a balance between merely looking at it full screen and looking at it 100%. If you view everything at 100% then (a) you are only looking at a tiny part of the picture and (b) you are more likely to oppose technically superior images like this one simply because they are offered in higher resolution. And that's just daft, and quite harmful to this project. -- Colin (talk) 07:01, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your point about high resolution possibly weighing up for flaws, but if you're saying we should not judge images at 100% anymore that's news to me. Oh and since you're a pro perhaps you can tell me what is the difference between CA and the remains of CA; I did remove it from my photo using software, so what wer're seeing is traces of the CA that used to be there. ...--Peulle (talk) 12:28, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think most people have worked this out, but clearly not everyone (especially at QI). Photographers often point out minor details that are only visible at 100% as suggestions for fixing because many of us are perfectionists and improve techniques, but that doesn't translate to those issues being something to oppose over. If you notice the FPC page only requires photos are of a "high technical quality" and goes on to list various aspects (focus, exposure, composition, movement control and depth of field) to consider -- nowhere does it say that images must be judged at 100%. The "complete guidelines" are just that, guidelines, and mostly aimed at beginners in photography and are generally a bit out-of-date. Really I think the page should be archived and replaced with something shorter, and with separate teaching pages for beginners who don't know about JPG compression or CA. The CA/moire in your photo is getting out-of-scope for this FPC so ping me if you are interested. -- Colin (talk) 14:29, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 15:49, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Mezquita_de_Agha_Bozorg,_Kashan,_Irán,_2016-09-19,_DD_85.jpg&oldid=252594637"