Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives November 29 2021

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Paris_Air_Show_2019,_Le_Bourget_(SIAE8603).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Dassault Falcon 8X on flying display at Paris Air Show 2019 --MB-one 09:43, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose tighter crop needed --Kallerna 09:58, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment I disagree. --MB-one 17:22, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I fully agree with Kallerna. --Augustgeyler 05:07, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Subject is too soft. -- Alvesgaspar 09:12, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Milseburg 15:05, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

File:Colombo_Lisboa_November_2021-12x.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Colombo comercial mall, Lisbon. -- Alvesgaspar 23:28, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Comment I am OK with either, but two edits of the same image should not both be eligible for QI IMO. --King of Hearts 00:03, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Question Why not? These are different images based on the same photo. That is common. -- Alvesgaspar 05:21, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Derivate work of an already nominated QI. It cannot get QI status. No, this is NOT common even if Alvesgaspar affirms it. --Poco a poco 21:30, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment Not a derivate work of the other image but a different version of the base photo. Nothing in the rules prevent this. -- Alvesgaspar 22:17, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I see no reason not to admit the quality of different treatments of the same source file. But this case is a good example of extreme distortion, especially due to forced straightening of the horizontals. Not a QI for me. --Velvet 08:11, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I know my vote won't count but I want to make clear that this is not a QI for me. -- Alvesgaspar 09:09, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Info Just marked your vote as uncountable. --Augustgeyler (talk) 14:12, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Well Alvesgaspar, I think you just successfully showed and teached us how worse the result can become when over correcting the verticals. --Augustgeyler (talk) 14:12, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Thank you Augustgeyler, that was indeed my purpose! :) -- Alvesgaspar 15:21, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment The problem here is not so much the correction of the verticals as the forced parallelization of the horizontals. A better respect of the angle of view and a correction of the verticals alone would have given a much more realistic and acceptable result. --Velvet 08:05, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
  • You are quite right about the correction of the horizontals, Velvet. -- Alvesgaspar 11:59, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Augustgeyler 20:34, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

File:Vista_de_Alcázar_del_Sal,_Portugal,_2021-09-12,_DD_56-64_PAN.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination View of Alcácer do Sal, Portugal --Poco a poco 15:10, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Deceiving view caused by wrong choice of projection, river is straight at this spot -- Alvesgaspar 06:48, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment As already discussed in CR. No QI rule prohibits this kind of projection. Fine if you want to agree on new regulations, but please, don't make them up. --Poco a poco 20:20, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Info Yes there is, in the Editing section of Image guidelies: "manipulations which cause the main subject to be misrepresented are never acceptable" -- Alvesgaspar 22:23, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 Comment This section in the guidelines refers to image retouching such as removing "distracting" objects or montages, not projection in panoramic photos. If the latter were meant, a fisheye photo should never become QI either, even if it were perfectly photographed. Any other photo taken with extreme focal lengths, whether super-wide or super-telephoto, would then basically be a "misrepresentation". --Smial 11:05, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 Comment Smial, that is your interpretation. In fact the text is quite general and also refers to perspective corrections. But I agree that this part should be made clearer, explicitly stating that excessive digital manipulations associated with perspective correction or the building of panoramas are not acceptable, whenever they misrepresent the subject and can deceive the end-user. -- Alvesgaspar 18:54, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 Comment In fact the rule you quoted is under the section ("common issue") "Unnecessary or inappropriate use of artistic filters and effects. Editing programs have wonderful artistic filters and scripts. Unnecessary use of these, however, can be detrimental to the image.". A panoramic stitching is not a perspective correction, and it is not an artistic filter or effect. It is the projection of a subject with a very large horizontal angle of view onto a plane that follows laws of optical geometry. Such images are not intended to be viewed as a whole, but are usually viewed from a short distance and observed section by section. And suddenly the crazy distortion looks more natural than a rectilinear super super wide-angle shot. Just as fisheye photos often look more natural than corresponding rectilinear photos when viewed from a close distance, despite the bent straight lines. Of course, such panorama stitching can also produce very absurd results, just like exaggerated perspective corrections that are not appropriate to the photographed motif. But I don't think it's right to reject cylindrical projections on principle. In any case, the rule you quoted does not say that. --Smial 08:51, 25 November 2021 (UTC) Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)
 Comment Hi Smial, it is not my intention to win any discussion. In fact, seeking to win a discussion is often detrimental to the very purpose of discussing, which is to clarify. The main intent of my "the king is naked!" cry was to draw the attention to the misuse of geometrical manipulations, as applied to perspective corrections and panorama building, often grossly misrepresenting the subject depicted (by the way, I have said repeatedly that I have nothing against the cylindrical projection, except its misuse). Having said this, I also disagree that panoramas are usually intended to be viewed closely, section by section (depicting the detail may be the purpose of any high resolution photo, not only panoramas). In fact, their main purpose is usually to depict in a single image what our eyes cannot perceive without moving the head. By the way, which of the two following images of the same subject would you choose as the best candidate to QI, taking into consideration the two previous goals (detail and whole view)? This or this? -- Alvesgaspar 11:30, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment I updated the file description (and added a category) to specify that it's a cyclindrical projection, Poco a poco 11:33, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Question So now the cylindrical projection is well marked in the description. Does that change the game? In general we should not promote images that do show things very different from how they are. Doesn't this count any more if the reason is stated in the description? I have no Idea. --Augustgeyler 16:23, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Please, explain me then what time of panorama would you use here, to depict the area shown in the image. Poco a poco 20:55, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Perhaps Alvesgaspar has an idea. --Augustgeyler 00:07, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Sorry but I don't. I would have to go there (which may happen in the future), take the photos and experimenting. It could even be that no satisfactory panorama is possible from that point of view, but I would try first the rectilinear one. -- Alvesgaspar 00:49, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
  • The rectilinear will not work, for that you need more mm and wouldn't probably see neither the village nor the river Poco a poco 09:21, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I think that keeping the horizon straight, you would only loose the uninteresting foreground on the left and right. Everything in the central photo would be conserved. Please see here: [1] -- Alvesgaspar 18:10, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment The projection is appropriate to represent the subject. What keeps me away from voting with pro is, that there are a few little stitch errors in the horizon. The resolution is high but sharpness could be better. --Milseburg 15:19, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Question Hi Milseburg, could you please elaborate why you consider the projection appropriate for the subject (maybe I am making a stupid mistake)? The way I see the problem is that you have two parallel lines in front of you: the river and the horizon. The only way we have to depict them as straight and parallel on a panorama is to use the rectilinear projection. Am I wrong? Unless you consider that it is ok to show one of them as curves; or both of them, for that matter, as in here. -- Alvesgaspar 20:55, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Declined   --Augustgeyler 20:37, 28 November 2021 (UTC)